Saunders is making me mad

[HisHands, ASN, RN]

Here's the question.

A nurse witnesses an automobile accident, and provides care to a child with an open wound. The family is so greatful that they offer the nurse monetary compensation. The nurse does not want to offend the family, so she accepts. The child later develops sepsis and dies. The family files suit. The nurse understands that which of the following statements would be accurate regarding immunity from the suit?

1) The Good Samaritan Act will protect the nurse.

2) The Good Samaritan Act will protect the nurse if the nurse's care was not negligent.

3) The Good Samaritan Act will not provide immunity from the suit if the nurse accepted compensation for the care provided.

4) The Good Samaritan Act protects only laypersons providing care and not health professionals.

I put 3 and it marked it wrong and told me it was 4. :uhoh21: Um... am I dumb here, or not reading the question right? I've had a few questions like this so far in Saunders that have been really odd and wrong from everything I learned. Is the NCLEX going to be THIS much harder than I am expecting?

[honeyb111]

I believe the answer to that question would depend on what state you live in. TN's good Samaritan law covers health care professionals as long as there is no negligence so I would have answered 2 to that question.

[CapeCoralNurse2be]

Depends on where you live, here in FL it covers medical professionals too as long as there was no negligence. Kind of an unfair question.

[Tony35NYC]

The Saunders' rationale is incorrect. How the Good Samaritan Act is applied and interpreted varies from state to state so this is a question that you will probably never seen on the NCLEX. I would skip over it if I were you.

[Little Panda RN, ASN, RN]

Yeah, I would skip over this one, here in North Dakota and Minnesota the good samaritan act does not protect a medical professional from liability if something were to go wrong. I took a CPR class through the red cross and that is what they told us.

[jacee]

I remember studying a question like that in the saunders book (saunders comprehensive book). What R U studying the disc or the questions in the book. If you're answering the questions in the back of the book it's worded differently but the answer is 1. Maybe the disc had an error because that's the same question just reworded an the answer should be the same.

[Bambury]

I believe #3 is the correct option. The Good Samaritan law covers the health care worker as well, but not so, when compensation has been received. The law, as generally known, is covered in all states. Variations might be minimal.

[Goldenhare]

It seems to me that like many NCLEX questions, the question is not about the Samaritan Law, it is about the legal ramifications of a trained professional taking payment for medical treatment. Though I think it is unlikely that this question would be one you see on the NCLEX, I think it is important to always say after reading a question, Are they asking me what I think they are asking me or are they asking something else. In this case, it is something else. I took the NCLEX in May, passed on 75 questions and I didn't think it was that difficult. What they are good at is hiding the real question, and you are discovering this. That is a big plus for you. OH if it makes you feel any better, I used Saunders also. I'm sure that you will test fine because you are THINKING through the answers instead of dismissing them.