Young_Torso

The real kicker about this is that there's never a solution on their end. The answer ultimately always boils down to "you need to do better" without any specifics as to how. If you're in management/administration and the only direction you can give is "start doing better," maybe it's time to start looking in the mirror.

Mixed tele/stepdown unit. 35 beds, 2 unit secretaries max, no tele techs. We get alarms on our phones.

Did you happen to see the poll where over 1/5th of those that voted think she should be charged? What do you think will happen if she's charged and convicted? Other than that we agree on every point other than the buck stopping at the level of the justice system.

I think the bigger question is why wasn't this reported to the BON right away to have her license (at least) temporarily suspended while the investigation was ongoing? That seems like a much more reasonable course of action. The BON and the government should be protecting the public. My only argument is that they should be doing it swiftly and in a way that makes the most sense.

This post is riddled with poor comparisons. 1. Comparing this situation to a drunk driver: not close because while both involve licensure, the accessibility to the means to cause harm is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH higher for the drunk driver. You can suspend a drunk driver's license and they can still potentially cause harm as long as they have access to car keys. A nurse can't just randomly show up at any given healthcare facility and potentially cause harm. You're also not dealing with any issues of underlying addictions that create such behavior. 2. Comparing this to the high mother: again not a good comparison because there's no licensure involved in having a child, and that's not even factoring in that baby doesn't just starve and die in the same duration that pushing a paralytic would do the job. That's days upon days of complete and utter neglect rather than a few moments. Infinitely greater potential to right that wrong. 3. Comparing this to drug dealers: this one isn't even close. I'll also give my unpopular opinion that the drug dealers should definitely be charged with possession with intent to sell, but not homicide (unless they sold a drug mixed with a substance that the buyer wasn't looking to purchase). I don't think we should charge store clerks at the liquor store with homicide if someone went in and bought a handle of vodka and subsequently died of alcohol poisoning. 4. Comparing to someone accidentally shot: this is more of a consequence of a lack of gun regulations in this country. This country was built on the backs of guns and we've had over 2 centuries to establish gun legislation had some semblance of reasonability. It's negligence, but I've taken a look at Utah's gun laws and it seems like laws on recreational shooting are...vague at best. 5. Comparing this to an irresponsible landlord: Again...no licensure issues that would stop an individual from doing the same thing again. 6. Comparing to an airshow pilot that accidentally crashed: No mention of mechanical failures. Just sounds like an airshow gone wrong without any explanation of the actual "negligence". Call me crazy...but I've been to an airshow and they're inherently dangerous. No matter the differences, I think the big difference lies in how we feel jail time benefits the perpetrator and the community as a whole. I'm of the opinion that jail should be reserved for violent criminals and individuals that prey on others for their own gain--individuals that truly have no value to society and pose a definite threat to others. If there's a chance to remove the individual from the environment to which they've caused harm and help rehabilitate that should be the first option.

Wasn't aware that she was able to find employment after the incident. I stand corrected. Kind of a strange disconnect where you can be charged with reckless homicide before your license is revoked, no?

I get that the nurse in question overrode safeguards, I get that she didn't follow the six rights of medication administration, and I acknowledge that her actions showed a great deal of negligence and recklessness. Revocation of her licensure would be a very fair and warranted punishment, in my opinion. Having said that: I don't see how incarceration or any further legal action would benefit any party in this situation. This nurse isn't a cold-blooded killer. She made a careless, tragic mistake, continues to have her name dragged through the dirt, will never work in nursing ever again, and has to live with this for the rest of her life. That sounds like punishment enough for me. She's been removed from an environment where she could potentially cause further harm. I don't see what any additional punitive measures would accomplish.

...wait what?

I'm one of those people that went into nursing for "the wrong reasons" (money, job security/employment opportunities, etc.), but I was fortunate to come to really enjoy the profession. I could see myself doing something else and being happy/successful, but I definitely don't regret going down this road either. I don't care why others decide to go into nursing. At the end of the day your actions matter much more than your intentions. Just do right by your patients and coworkers and everything will be beautiful.

If you're asking a question like this, it's time to find a hobby. You're (presumably) young, single, untethered, and living in a time where just about anything we want is at our fingertips. I don't think anyone has the right to be "bored" in today's day and age, but that applies doubly to people in your situation. Delve deeper into a craft, go on some dates, read/learn for pleasure, exercise/focus on self-improvement, socialize, travel, etc.

Sub-acute rehab.

Unless I'm reading what you wrote incorrectly, you're stating the average acute care patient gets the same scrutiny of their orders that the average LTC resident does. Every subsequent sentence I wrote was to show how that claim isn't true.

Disagree. I've worked LTC/SAR and currently work in acute care and it's a different ballgame now. Haldol and seroquel are routinely used for agitation in the hospital (along with benzos). At my SAR job we were told to instruct the attendings to d/c the antipsychotics when doing med reviews for new admits coming from the hospital unless they had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, Tourette's, or Huntington's. If a doctor was resistant to stop the meds we were instructed to call the medical director to get the d/c order, or an order for a psych consult at the very least. Same thing if a patient came in with a benzo order without a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder.

From the understanding I've gathered from speaking with the palliative care physician that helped formulate the NY state MOLST form, DNR only refers to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of a cardiac arrest. There is a separate order for DNI. You can be DNR only, DNI only (makes no sense, but whatever), or both. The way "DNR" is interpreted in every healthcare facility that I've worked in is that you're doing every intervention needed to sustain life prior to cardiac arrest, but allowing for natural death in the event that it does occur. MOLST forms allow patients and families to decide on other advanced directives (ex.: do not hospitalize, no feeding tube, no IV fluids, no antibiotics, etc.), but these are in addition to the DNR order...or sometimes without, as you can wish for CPR and still have directives for "no feeding tube." Good question though. Advanced directives can be confusing and have a ton of grey areas.