Nurses General Nursing
Published Aug 4, 2007
shyone2005
59 Posts
hello. is anyone here familiar about paul gann act?? in an emergency situation i know its okay to start blood but if md/s has not signed the consent can we still give the blood.??? thanks in advance...
Tweety, BSN, RN
35,143 Posts
I'm not familiar with that act, but in my facility there has to be an order to transfuse blood as medically necessary. Although I'm not sure they have to sign a consent as no consent is given, but in the MD orders they have to write an order. I'm not sure what they do in the ER when it's a matter of life and death. If there isn't documentation that it's medically necessary then you're setting yourself up for trouble.
traumaRUs, MSN, APRN
88 Articles; 21,256 Posts
Here is some info. It appears to be in CA. Unsure if this is nationwide or not:
http://www.cbbsweb.org/enf/1999_2000/ganndoc.html
TazziRN, RN
6,487 Posts
I worked ER in CA for many years. We gave blood in emergencies without consents, with a doctor's order. Most of the time there was someone to get consents from, but in a true emergency like a trauma, the pt is unresponsive and there is no family, we went by "implied consent" unless there was something on the pt's body that indicated "No transufusions".
suzanne4, RN
26,410 Posts
In an emergency situation, the consent is signed by the physician that it is a medical emergency and no time to discuss it with the patient.
Same way that for trauma patients, two physicians sign the consent that it is medical emergency and the patient will not survive without having the procedure done or a delay could also kill them.
Paul Gann Act---- think that it is specific to CA. Have not seen it in any other states that I have worked in.
thanks everyone...