Patient Abandonment

[DanT103]

I walked out during my orientation. I was placed with a nurse on a med cart. I came in while she was passing meds. My orientation started an hour after the shift began.  She had the keys and I did not do a change of shift report. She was logged into the system and I was not.  I gave a few medications and took some vitals. I told both the orientating nurse and ADON that I am not interested in working there and walked out. Can I be charged with patient abandonment?

Best,

Dan          

[OchemNerd, BSN, RN]

toomuchbaloney said:

That's the sort of stuff that doesn't ever make it to a resume.  Come on now. 

Of course, a person does not put on their resume; I was being a bit facetious. However, most places require a detailed employment history, especially past healthcare positions. Not reporting past employment, regardless of how long someone worked there, is grounds for termination. This recently happened to a nurse I knew. She accepted the position and failed the background check for not reporting a past position. From what I understand, it was an honest mistake, though I do not know the exact circumstances. Personally, I would raise an eyebrow if someone applying for a position left their previous job during orientation. All things being equal, it could be the deciding factor between candidates.  

[JBMmom, MSN, NP]

@DanT03, not sure whether you're coming back. Hopefully you've seen that the concensus here is that patient abandonment does not appear to apply here. I think that while on orientation, if someone else has taken full report alongside you and has ultimate responsibility for the patients it's unlikely anyone would pursue any further action. The facility is probably glad they didn't invest more than a couple hours on someone that wasn't going to work out, and you probably made a good choice if it obviously wasn't going to work out. Just watch for similar red flags in any future interviews, hopefully this gave you an idea of some questions you might have based on the things that lead you to walk out. Good luck. 

[toomuchbaloney]

OchemNerd said:

Of course, a person does not put on their resume; I was being a bit facetious. However, most places require a detailed employment history, especially past healthcare positions. Not reporting past employment, regardless of how long someone worked there, is grounds for termination. This recently happened to a nurse I knew. She accepted the position and failed the background check for not reporting a past position. From what I understand, it was an honest mistake, though I do not know the exact circumstances. Personally, I would raise an eyebrow if someone applying for a position left their previous job during orientation. All things being equal, it could be the deciding factor between candidates.  

I've been a nurse for decades. I've been a hiring manager in several different settings and states. There simply is no broad expectation or requirement that an individual should list every single employment on the application, just those that are relevant and related to the current position.  Perhaps some employers are more interested than others and will research other employment but generally you stick with the provided info, professional recommendations and the background check. Honestly, if I was interviewing someone and they listed employment that only lasted days, I would wonder why they listed it at all. 

[chare]

toomuchbaloney said:

I've been a nurse for decades. I've been a hiring manager in several different settings and states. There simply is no broad expectation or requirement that an individual should list every single employment on the application, just those that are relevant and related to the current position. ...

Interesting.  In my experience, every application I've submitted as for all employment history, most commonly the previous 10 years.  Perhaps these are regional practices.

[toomuchbaloney]

chare said:

Interesting.  In my experience, every application I've submitted as for all employment history, most commonly the previous 10 years.  Perhaps these are regional practices.

Asking versus requiring.

Perhaps it's regional or perhaps it's a matter of interpretation.  Certainly background checks may reveal employment not listed and, if that is a red flag for the employer there may be additional discussion.  If one is uncomfortable with excluding a brief period of employment, they should include it for examination and discussion on the application and resume.  Otherwise, when I see that they worked for ABC nursing home for days in the background check I might ask what happened.  

In the last decade of my career I changed employers.  I hired on with one employer and decided in the first couple days of orientation that it was not a good fit.  I did not include that on my resume or in my application to the company I did hire onto. I hadn't done any professional work for that employer.  It may have shown up on my rather extensive background and security clearance check but my new employer didn't ask.  

[OchemNerd, BSN, RN]

As someone who has sat on interview boards, all previous healthcare positions were expected to be listed. Maybe this was an institutional policy? Everyone looks at different things, but I would certainly be interested in why someone left a job during orientation. Why did they leave? Do they have unrealistic expectations? Do they understand the nature of the position being applied for? Is there a high chance they may leave again within the first year? These would be some of my questions/concerns.

They may have quit on the first day, but the fact remains the position was filled. They likely stopped accepting applications from other potential candidates, money was spent on administrative work, and decisions for the future may have been made based on the number of expected employees at a given time. I am not saying I wouldn't hire them, and unless this is part of a larger pattern, it will not have a long-term impact on the OP's future career; however, I disagree about it being insignificant. 

Just my two cents. 

[londonflo]

JKL33 said:

I personally don't have much problem if the OP showed up and didn't like the lay of the land and excused himself.

Of this I agree. I did not read the OP's post (and subsequent actions) as being as civilized/calmly thought out as you expressed here. If the actions were thought out, why wonder later if the term 'abandonment' could be applied to the OP's actions?

[toomuchbaloney]

OchemNerd said:

As someone who has sat on interview boards, all previous healthcare positions were expected to be listed. Maybe this was an institutional policy? Everyone looks at different things, but I would certainly be interested in why someone left a job during orientation. Why did they leave? Do they have unrealistic expectations? Do they understand the nature of the position being applied for? Is there a high chance they may leave again within the first year? These would be some of my questions/concerns.

They may have quit on the first day, but the fact remains the position was filled. They likely stopped accepting applications from other potential candidates, money was spent on administrative work, and decisions for the future may have been made based on the number of expected employees at a given time. I am not saying I wouldn't hire them, and unless this is part of a larger pattern, it will not have a long-term impact on the OP's future career; however, I disagree about it being insignificant. 

Just my two cents. 

I didn't use the term insignificant. 

Patterns can certainly be seen in resumes and warning signs can be detected in the interview process. I can see where the omission might be suspicious.  That might especially be true if that candidate doesn't have much employment history.  

[JKL33]

londonflo said:

 If the actions were thought out, why wonder later if the term 'abandonment' could be applied to the OP's actions?

Probably because it can be a threat often thrown around in some circles, especially chaotic workplaces where nurses are treated poorly, and is OFTEN (by the looks of things I've read here) conflated with job abandonment by particularly toxic administrators. Purposeful confusion of the issues in order to threaten or control people. So it's something people have heard of completely separate from whether or not they believe their own actions likely qualify. What they're worried about is whether some administrator would be able to get far with an accusation of such, based on their actions.

Which, if my reading skills are up to par, is I believe pretty much exactly what the poster asked.

OchemNerd said:

As someone who has sat on interview boards, all previous healthcare positions were expected to be listed. Maybe this was an institutional policy? Everyone looks at different things, but I would certainly be interested in why someone left a job during orientation. Why did they leave? Do they have unrealistic expectations? Do they understand the nature of the position being applied for? Is there a high chance they may leave again within the first year? These would be some of my questions/concerns.

They may have quit on the first day, but the fact remains the position was filled. They likely stopped accepting applications from other potential candidates, money was spent on administrative work, and decisions for the future may have been made based on the number of expected employees at a given time. I am not saying I wouldn't hire them, and unless this is part of a larger pattern, it will not have a long-term impact on the OP's future career; however, I disagree about it being insignificant.  

Just my two cents. 

Yes, of course it may be asked about in an interview, that's completely reasonable. But the fact that it will or could be is certainly no good reason to stay at a job, particularly one that is unacceptable enough in the first 1-2 hours that the employee knows they will not stay.

I am not sure if this was LTC, but it may have been based on mention of the med cart/med pass. There is no way in heck they stopped hiring anyone based on this filled position and it is not the employee's job to stay employed through orientation so that an employer's potential losses can be mitigated, just like an employer isn't responsible to keep an employee on staff in order to mitigate negative financial consequences to the employee. Granted, these may be things that a future employer will be thinking about upon viewing an application; it is their job to consider their interests. And it is perfectly normal and legitimate for an employee to be concerned about their own interests.

Your point is taken that one should consider all the possible ramifications of their actions and not do things too lightly. But there are potential ramifications to just about everything, including staying in a place to which one is not suited (including sometimes quite serious consequences like chronic poor treatment, legal and financial difficulties and tarnishing of professional record). We are not given a reason why the OP left, but I can imagine a scenario where I would take one look and say absolutely not--and my shortest term with an employer so far in my career is 7 years.

[lifelearningrn, BSN, RN]

Clearly the OP didn't like what he saw a couple hours into his orientation, and decided the job wasn't the right fit. Why stick out a shift when you know you won't return??  

[londonflo]

lifelearningrn said:

Clearly the OP didn't like what he saw a couple hours into his orientation, and decided the job wasn't the right fit. Why stick out a shift when you know you won't return??  

The OP accepted the shift with tacit approval. The OP acted on the role with giving meds. Then the OP states the  accompanying dramatics after accepting (acting) on a assignment . is there any concern for the patients? cold, how, callus. . BUT he/she still gave medicines despite the previous..

The OP could have quit next day. 

No matter the intricacies of the job. the OP accepted the position  as evidenced by passing medicines. and  floundering because .." I didn't get report, I did not get the keys, I don't have computer access!" All of these are important and need to be in place at the START of the shift. But you need to speak up at the start of the shift!

OP Nasty piece of work. 

[toomuchbaloney]

londonflo said:

The OP accepted the shift with tacit approval. The OP acted on the role with giving meds. Then the OP states the  accompanying dramatics after accepting (acting) on a assignment . is there any concern for the patients? cold, how, callus. . BUT he/she still gave medicines despite the previous..

The OP could have quit next day. 

No matter the intricacies of the job. the OP accepted the position  as evidenced by passing medicines. and  floundering because .." I didn't get report, I did not get the keys, I don't have computer access!" All of these are important and need to be in place at the START of the shift. But you need to speak up at the start of the shift!

OP Nasty piece of work. 

That is just an opinion.  

OP has zero obligation to remain in orientation for a job that they've decided is a bad fit.