guest7/31/17

Sadly it will live forever on NPDB and NURSYS. Employers check these databases. Most Boards of Nursing automatically forward you to Nursys when verifying a license. They don't fwd to NPDB because they allow you to post a rebuttal.

You can appeal to what is usually called: Eligibility Committee See this investigative report on boards abuse of power https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91322 Investigative Report On Boards Abusing Power Darlene Nelson RN

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91322 Investigative Report On Boards Abusing Power Darlene Nelson RN

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91322 Investigative report on Boards abusing power.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91322 Investigative report on Boards abuse of power. We and our work is mentioned

I agree with the writers description of how immediate bedding leads to emergency room overcrowding and places those with emergent needs at risk. Immediate bedding however, is a cooperate maneuver to improve patient satisfaction by reducing wait times. It however, has a much darker agenda of profit. Immediate bedding is all about decreasing door to disposition time to increase number and preventing patients from leaving without being seen and charged. It is all about metrics and places enormous stress on nurses and providers as they are forced to rush patient care to meet the 45 minute length of stay metric. I agree the system placed this nurse and patients in harms way. That is what immediate bedding does. It creates chaos. Regardless, there is no excuse for giving EPI IV in anaphylaxis. An 18 year, CEN knows better. It is basic nursing knowledge to treat anaphylaxis with EPI only SQ or IM. I have to say that the charge RN also had a duty to protect patients from harm and should have made better decisions to manage patient flow. Assigning a patient with an at risk airway to a non monitored bed is negligent. Surely,stable patients could have been pulled out or even moved to the non urgent area to free up a resuscitation room? The charge nurse also, should have offered assistance to the nurse in managing such an overly acute assignment. Charge nurses must be prepared to step up and care for patients themselves at times. If worse came to worse the RRT could have been called for extra hands and portable monitors used.

That is true. And the BON has a history of not supporting nurses who are retaliated against. SH unfortunately, really is something the BON created to give appearance of addressing issue they hear as mitigating circumstances in disciplinary issues, all the time. It is a double edged sword. The BON will respond with question of did nurse call SH when errors or bad outcomes predictably occur because of poor staffing or system problems. Also when nurses claim unsafe conditions as a mitigating circumstance for a bad outcome the Board will respond with that they cannot address or influence employment or facility issues. We assist nurses navigate Board actions against their license and have seen this very issue. We have had cases where the Board charged that the nurse failed to call SH.

Completely agree. It is unfortunate, in order to have violated the law, SH would have had to be called.

Safe Harbor in Texas is law. Its part of the Texas Administrative Code. I posted it earlier. Board however, will not intervene. It does likely rise to the level of a civil suit. But statute of limitations at least in Texas in only 90 days.

Oh you will get a response. They will tell you there role is not to advocate for nurses but to protect the public. They also will state they have no authority in employment issues. But my fear would be the self admission of not calling SH. Remember the Board investigates greater than 1400 nurses a year. Huge percentage proceed to formal charges. They have no oversight and deny due process of law.

I agree the Texas Board holds the nurse accountable to duty to call Safe Harbor. Have had case where nurse was charged with failure to call SH though minor incidents occurred due to staffing shortage. BON will not answer your question. They might however, investigate you.

In Texas it must be remembered that Safe Harbor (SH), is legislated law. SH as the law reads does protect your job in so far as it is a violation of the law to "retaliate." Any Nurse Administrators who permit or are aware/have reason to know of the retaliation, can then be said to have violated the NPA and TAC. That said retaliation or not the Board has no history of advocating for nurses who have been retaliated against in anyway let alone for calling SH. I have also seen several cases where the Board used failing to call SH as a way to excuse mitigating circumstances such as insufficient staffing and unsafe conditions that lead to such as failure to rescue. There is no mechanism within SH law to permit remedy for retaliatory termination. The law does state the nurse may seek civil remedy. In Texas however. the statute of limitations runs in 90 days. Filing a lawsuit, however , does not get the nurse their job back. In the end it is a risk for nurses to file SH because employers will get away with using it to retaliate. Yet, the Board hold the nurse accountable to call SH. As usual the nurse is in a no win situation. And without support or advocacy.

Some of the advice here is really misleading. First off Safe Harbor (if in Tx.) Is law. Protections under safe harbor are also law. ) TOC §303.005(c) and (h) (NPR Law) and §301.352 provide the following protections: (A) A nurse may not be suspended, terminated, or otherwise disciplined, retaliated, or discriminated against for requesting safe harbor in good faith. And mination. (C) A nurse is not subject to being reported to the Board and may not be disciplined by the Board for engaging in the conduct awaiting the determination of the nursing peer review committee as permitted by subsection (g) of this section. A nurse's protections from disciplinary action by the Board for engaging in the conduct or assignment awaiting nursing peer review determination remain in place for 48 hours after the nurse is advised of the nursing peer review committee's determination. This time limitation does not affect the nurse's protections from retaliation by the facility, agency, entity or employer under TOC §303.005(h)(NPR Law) for requesting safe harbor. (3) If retaliation occurs, TOC §301.413 (NPA) provides a nurse the right to file civil suit to recover damages. Safe Harbor can now be called verbally. It is NOT insubordination. You in fact have a duty to call SH if pts at risk of harm and BON can and does discipline for failures to call SH. Even in Tx a right to work state, you are protected against retaliation. Statute of limitations in Tx do not exceed 90 days for filing of civil suit.

Also, this nurse should report thr nurse Administrators who made this comment and terminated nurse, It is a violation of Board rules and regs worthy of investigation

Also it is not a threat but the standard of care and expectation of nurse by Board, There are no exclusions in SH law about how it was called such as tone Please do not discourage nurses from calling SH