I ran onto this article where a Canadian nursing board is punishing an RN for posting on her private Facebook page about care her Grandfather received at a hospital, where she DID NOT work at, charging her with Professional Misconduct.
I personally think nursing boards have to much control over what happens in our personal lives.
In February 2015, Prince Albert nurse Carolyn Strom posted a news article about end-of-life care on her personal Facebook page and then commented about the subpar care†her grandfather had received at a Macklin health facility. The post was brought to the attention of staff there, who filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association (SRNA).
Strom defended herself at a two-day hearing in Regina this past February — the SRNA's first disciplinary hearing about nurses' behaviour on social media. She argued the SRNA's code of ethics did not apply to her when she posted on Facebook because she was not part of her grandfather's health care team and wrote the post on a personal page. She said it's important for people to discuss health care issues and argued her right to free speech would be violated if she was found guilty of professional misconduct.
The SRNA disagreed.
In a written decision published this fall, the SRNA pointed out that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not absolute. It also stated that courts across Canada have found regulated professionals guilty of professional misconduct because of things they have done in their private lives.
Pending the outcome of a penalty hearing that has not yet been scheduled, Strom could be expelled or suspended from the SRNA or face some other form of sanction, such as a fine.
Strom's lawyer, Marcus Davies, said he will appeal the decision after the penalty hearing.
(The SRNA) have over-punished, over-sanctioned and responded inappropriately to a discussion on health care and they have held (Strom) to a standard that I think few of us would expect ever to be held to. You can't comment on your own grandparent?†he said.
If you remove nurses from a discussion of health care — which this decision effectively does — nurses will be reluctant or frightened to engage in a frank discussion of health care in public. Then you've made the discussion less valuable.â€
If the decision stands, it could have repercussions for other self-regulating professions such as doctors, accountants and lawyers, Davies said.
The SRNA said Strom, who identified herself as a nurse in her Facebook post, harmed the reputation of nursing staff at the Macklin facility, which runs contrary to the SRNA's broad code of ethics.
Taken from a CBC news story on the hearing, here is the original offending facebook statement:
"My grandfather spent a week in palliative care before he died and after hearing about his and my family's experience there, it is evident that not everyone is 'up to speed' on how to approach end of life care or how to help maintain an ageing senior's dignity.
I challenge the people involved in decision making with that facility to please get all your staff a refresher on this topic and more. Don't get me wrong, 'some' people have provided excellent care so I thank you so very much for your efforts, but to those who made Grandpa's last years less than desirable, please do better next time."
I don't know if any parts of the quote were removed. She was found guilty of professional misconduct, but I was unable to find any mention of the exact punishment.
That sounds pretty mild, although it's not something I would have shared on social media. There is a part of me that thinks anything discouraging dramatic victim claims on facebook is good, but I do feel some sympathy for this nurse. Hopefully she'll get a little smack that will knock some sense into her, but nothing too serious beyond that.
I am a staunch supporter of free speech. However if I interpret the decision made by the SRNA correctly, the problem isn't the fact that the nurse criticized the facility but rather the way she did it, in which capacity she seemed to do it and what steps she failed/omitted to take before choosing to share her critique on Facebook.
According to the public notice of hearing, the SRNA is charging Strom with violation of confidentiality, failure to follow proper channels, impact on reputation of facility and staff, failure to first obtain all the facts, and using status of registered nurse of personal purposes under the Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses.
According to the above link this is part of her Facebook post:
My grandfather spent a week in palliative care before he died and after hearing about his and my family's experience there, it is evident that not everyone is 'up to speed' on how to approach end of life care or how to help maintain an ageing senior's dignity," Strom said online.
I interpret this as she's not posting about things she herself has witnessed, but rather what has been relayed to her by others.
(After you click on this link you need to click on the nurse's name to read the complete decision by the SRNA (Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Association) Discipline Committee).
According to the decision of the Discipline Committee this was another part of her Facebook post:
. . . Why do you do your job? Do you actually care about the people you WORK FOR/Care for? Or is it JUST A JOB, WITH A PAYCHEQUE? . . . If so, maybe it's time to take a step back.
If I interpret it correctly it also says in the Committee's decision that the nurse in question never voiced any complaints directly to the facility regarding those aspects of her relative's care that are addressed/criticized in the Facebook post.
17. [redacted] testified that she never received a formal complaint from Carolyn Strom or any member of her extended family regarding the care of [redacted]. The only complaint or criticism from Ms. Strom that the witnesses could recall was her concern about an expired liquid hand sanitizer that was in the recreation room. Ms. Strom admitted that was the only complaint she made to staff about [redacted] care or the facility.
18. Ms. Strom testified that she visited [redacted] at [redacted] when she could. She lives three and one-half hours away [redacted] and she was also busy with her full time job and her family. Based on her visits at the facility and discussions with her family, she observed aspects of [redacted] care that she questioned and gave her concern. Ms. Strom admitted she did not bring those concerns to the attention of the Executive Director or any other staff at [redacted]. In cross-examination, she also admitted that she had no particular expertise in palliative care or end of life care.
41. Ms. Strom did not use any appropriate organizational channelsâ€. When asked about that, Ms. Strom testified she did not know who to report to. As a registered nurse, Ms. Strom would know better than anyone about the lines of authority in a health care facility.
I've only included a few short quotes from the Committee's decision. In order to obtain a fair and complete picture of the facts of the case one should read the entire document.
From what I can tell from her Facebook post her critique lacks specifics. The critique is vague and quite broad. It's hard to know what to make of the assertion/claim that not everyone's "up to speed". It is possible that some sub-standard care was delivered but it's in my opinion really difficult to judge since no specific incidents have been described/specified.
It seems some members of staff at the facility in question felt unfairly attacked:
13. ....... [readcted] testified that the staff felt demoralized about the Facebook post and they were also angry about it as they saw its contents as one sided and an unfair attack
(partial quote)
What I think that this all boils down to is that the correct way of handling this would have been for the nurse in question to bring any misgivings or complaints regarding the care provided by the facility to the attention of the facility, instead of bypassing that step and taking it directly to social media.
I definitely don't think that this nurse should lose her license because of the Facebook posts, but I do think that it is a good idea to carefully consider what is appropriate to share via social media and what isn't. It's prudent to be aware that anything even remotely work-related has the potential to have professional ramifications. That's just the way today's world operates.
In my opinion social media might be a useful tool to spread information that the public can benefit from knowing, after other options have been exhausted and have failed. But I would first try to address any problems through proper channels.
She is a nurse in Canada, a nationalized system. Therefore all health care facilities in Canada are under the government, her employer. I am sure her tax documents at the end of the year show her employer as the federal government, as well as those in the palliative care facility she complained about. They are technically coworkers. She did complain about her employer, and by extension, the regulatory board is , wait for it, the government.
@MrNurse(x2). I'm a Swedish nurse; universal, single-payer healthcare. The government is not my employer. On my tax return my employer is listed as the corporation that manages the hospital I work in.
She is a nurse in Canada, a nationalized system. Therefore all health care facilities in Canada are under the government, her employer. I am sure her tax documents at the end of the year show her employer as the federal government, as well as those in the palliative care facility she complained about. They are technically coworkers. She did complain about her employer, and by extension, the regulatory board is , wait for it, the government.
For the record, I too am a nurse in Canada, and I know how it works. Health care facilities are FUNDED by provincial (not federal) governments and run by smaller regional health authorities. It's not like my tax stub says "Employer: Canadian government." It's not the same thing at all. They are not technically coworkers any more than I am technically a coworker with a nurse working up in Prince George. That's ridiculous.
And the SRNA is not the government either. It's an organization funded by members and the council is largely elected by members.
For the record, I too am a nurse in Canada, and I know how it works. Health care facilities are FUNDED by provincial (not federal) governments and run by smaller regional health authorities. It's not like my tax stub says "Employer: Canadian government." It's not the same thing at all. They are not technically coworkers any more than I am technically a coworker with a nurse working up in Prince George. That's ridiculous.
And the SRNA is not the government either. It's an organization funded by members and the council is largely elected by members.
I agree with macawake's well-stated post. People really should be more careful about what they share on social media. Most issues are best resolved privately. As a registered nurse, this woman would have no trouble finding the proper person to express her dissatisfaction with the care her loved one received. It's just all too easy, in the heat of an emotional moment, to pick up one's phone and type an impulsive post, then share it with the world. Think before you post, friends!
If you go to your local employer's facebook and look at the 'reviews' section you will probably see a magnitude of dissatisfied posts ranging anywhere from stating they (or family member) received horrible care to the extremely vulgar posts.
I am just curious, what makes an RN any different. I realize that generally when you start a job you sign a social media release form, that i understand may be different everywhere, that basically says not to violate patient confidentiality or post anything about YOUR facility in bad taste. What i was able to read from this is that she violated neither of these. --what i'm trying to get at here is what makes her different than anybody else, besides that she holds a nursing degree?
I am only curious that if instead of a nurse, this was a doctor, what sort of reaction would she get?
Specializes in Mental Health, Gerontology, Palliative.
She is a nurse in Canada, a nationalized system. Therefore all health care facilities in Canada are under the government, her employer. I am sure her tax documents at the end of the year show her employer as the federal government, as well as those in the palliative care facility she complained about. They are technically coworkers. She did complain about her employer, and by extension, the regulatory board is , wait for it, the government.
You know little about universal healthcare if this post is indicative of anything. It is incredibly simplistic and mostly incorrect
We have the government funded health system which covers the public hospital system and all its related clinics and outpatient appointments.
We have private hospitals which are self funded, NGOs non governmental organizations which receive some funding from the government however but are able set their own policies and procedures, hire their own staff etc and are very seperate entities from the government.
I work for a private hospital, at the end of the year my tax documents show my employer who is completely different from the government
So dislike universal healthcare all you like but do so with all the facts
What do you think, can a family member self-identify as an RN on Facebook and then give a negative opinion as to the care given?
I heard about the story concerning the Canadian nurse who posted on Facebook regarding her grandfather's care. She identified herself as a nurse and expressed her opinion regarding the care. This got her into hot water with the Canadian nurses regulatory body.
In my opinion, this is wrong, I don't think this squelching of free speech serves the common good.
Freedom of speech in Canada must be much different than the freedom of speech in the USA. Eh?
On December 12, Lord Dear introduced a motion to reform section 5 from the Public Order Act 1986 in the British House of Lords. Section 5 says that a person is guilty of an offence in Britain if he
"uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
Sorry to be late to this meeting, but this is the complete text of the news coverage earlier referred to:
Carolyn Strom's grandfather died in January 2015. The following month she posted a comment to Facebook both criticizing and applauding the efforts made by the palliative care staff at St. Joseph's Health Facility in Macklin, Sask., about 250 kilometres west of Saskatoon.
"My grandfather spent a week in palliative care before he died and after hearing about his and my family's experience there, it is evident that not everyone is 'up to speed' on how to approach end of life care or how to help maintain an ageing senior's dignity," wrote Strom in her post.
Carolyn Strom was shocked to learn she was reported to the SRNA over her Facebook post. (Facebook)
"I challenge the people involved in decision making with that facility to please get all your staff a refresher on this topic and more. Don't get me wrong, 'some' people have provided excellent care so I thank you so very much for your efforts, but to those who made Grandpa's last years less than desirable, please do better next time," she added.
Strom went on to caution those with loved ones in a health-care facility to keep an eye on their family members, and to ask people who work in health care to be more compassionate.
"As an RN [registered nurse] and avid health care advocate myself, I just have to speak up," wrote Strom. "Whatever reasons/excuses people give for not giving quality of life care, I do not care. It just needs to be fixed."
[h=2]Saskatoon lawyer weighs in[/h]Her comments were posted on Feb. 25, 2015 to Facebook, and since then, Strom has been reported to the SRNA by another nurse, and distant relative of Strom's, working at St. Joseph's.
According to the public notice of hearing, the SRNA is charging Strom with violation of confidentiality, failure to follow proper channels, impact on reputation of facility and staff, failure to first obtain all the facts, and using status of registered nurse of personal purposes under the Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses.
If you go to your local employer's facebook and look at the 'reviews' section you will probably see a magnitude of dissatisfied posts ranging anywhere from stating they (or family member) received horrible care to the extremely vulgar posts.
I am just curious, what makes an RN any different. I realize that generally when you start a job you sign a social media release form, that i understand may be different everywhere, that basically says not to violate patient confidentiality or post anything about YOUR facility in bad taste. What i was able to read from this is that she violated neither of these. --what i'm trying to get at here is what makes her different than anybody else, besides that she holds a nursing degree?
I am only curious that if instead of a nurse, this was a doctor, what sort of reaction would she get?
The difference between a nurse and everyone else is that we petitioned the government for a license and were granted the privilege to serve the public under certain rules and regulations.
As to what reaction the physician would have received I am not sure since they practice under a different practice act with different rules and regulations.
Carolyn Strom was shocked to learn she was reported to the SRNA over her Facebook post. (Facebook)
Sour Lemon
5,016 Posts
That sounds pretty mild, although it's not something I would have shared on social media. There is a part of me that thinks anything discouraging dramatic victim claims on facebook is good, but I do feel some sympathy for this nurse. Hopefully she'll get a little smack that will knock some sense into her, but nothing too serious beyond that.