I need some opinions. The other night I was helping out in PACU. (I am usually in ER or Preop, but occasionally go to PACU when needed) I was asked by another nurse to transport her patient upstairs. The patient was early 30's female, very nice, always saying thanks when people helped her. We talked as I took her to her room. She had surgery for a cancer recurrence, so we talked about the surgery, her young kids, her family, etc. It was shift change, so I ended up having to wait with her for quite a while to see her nurse, the PACU nurse has to have face to face time with the receiving floor nurse. During this time we chatted some more. Then I left when her nurse got there.
The next day I was off. I was thinking about this patient and how nice she was. I called her room to check on her. I just let her know I had been thinking about her, and asked how she was doing...get well soon, etc. She seemed very appreciative.
A few days later I told her PACU nurse that I had spoken with her. This nurse was very offended with me and said I had broken HIPPAA (sp?) laws by calling the patient to check on her. Is this true? I just thought I was being nice. When I had my daughter, the L&D nurse called the next day to check on me. I know hospitals can be lonely places and thought one might like to hear a friendly voice and know someone was thinking of them.
HIPPAA wasn't ever intended to give patients something on which to hang a lawsuit. It was originated by insurance company lobbyists who wanted information about patients in regard to "insurability" and higher premiums for prior health problems. There was some opposition about their poking their noses into so many files, so they heavy handedly got a law passed that allows them to do that.
Someone attached a danger signal on it, for anyone whose "loose lips could sink ships" (phrase taken from WW II). I found that insulting to professionals whose education and standing made talking about patients and their conditions prohibited, always. Now it seems court phobics are taking it many steps farther.
It's important that you know (yet not base your actions on it, for obvious reasons) that there is a preliminary hearing any time a lawsuit is filed, to have a Judge determine if there are adequate circumstances, proof, etc. for a hearing. Usually it's only when "damage" to a patient has occurred (not the potential for it, but actual damage), that makes a lawsuit credible.
Many a threatened lawsuit doesn't actualize, because of insufficient reasons for one. I remember a patient whose doctor went into severe denial when she gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby, because (for whatever reason), he hadn't done an amnio and she just turned 35 during her pregnancy. The nurses (unaware of that history) quietly drew that physician's attention to the baby's facial characteristics, and he became furious, forbidding any mention of the obvious, to the family......
That situation shouldn't have caused such an uproar, because no case has been won based on a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" basis. While patients have shouted to the rooftops that the doctor should pay for future health care costs and actually take over the care of a baby personally, when parents assert they might have chosen abortion if they'd known of a serious genetic disease early enough in pregnancy, no such decision was ever reached, and often the cases haven't gotten to the hearing stage.
Unfortunately some lawyers take on worthless cases, but they soon learn that it isn't worth it. They end up with egg on their faces every time. So please don't let tachycardia and anxiety overtake you in circumstances wherein no actual harm occurred to a patient in your care. Nurses responsible for medication errors may never get to court, when the patient is unscathed, but of course they reflect badly on nurses, no matter how hectic a situation might be, or how little potential for damage there is.
In the ancient times during which I attained my nursing education at a hospital school of nursing, my classmate gave a laxative to the wrong patient, and she was suspended for 3 months. That may seem cruel and unusual punishment now, but let me tell you, there were many fewer med errors in those times. (Yes, I know you'll propose the possibility that the increased number and complexity of medications; and possibly heavier caseloads have caused the epidemic in med errors that presents now.)
Even the fear of losing everything you own in a lost battle in court doesn't seem to deter stats demonstrating evidence of sinking standards, - pixis not influencing it, or other measures that haven't lessened negligence. As we all know, lowering the nurse (not staff): patient ratio would greatly lessen the possibility of making those errors. Unfortunately the cost of lawsuits against hospitals hasn't made increased staffing seem cost effective until now.
Hopefully the close monitoring of the implementation of the Reform of Health Care Act, will bring that about. :yelclap:
HIPPAA wasn't ever intended to give patients something on which to hang a lawsuit. It was originated by insurance company lobbyists who wanted information about patients in regard to "insurability" and higher premiums for prior health problems. There was some opposition about their poking their noses into so many files, so they heavy handedly got a law passed that allows them to do that.
Someone attached a danger signal on it, for anyone whose "loose lips could sink ships" (phrase taken from WW II). I found that insulting to professionals whose education and standing made talking about patients and their conditions prohibited, always. Now it seems court phobics are taking it many steps farther.
It's important that you know (yet not base your actions on it, for obvious reasons) that there is a preliminary hearing any time a lawsuit is filed, to have a Judge determine if there are adequate circumstances, proof, etc. for a hearing. Usually it's only when "damage" to a patient has occurred (not the potential for it, but actual damage), that makes a lawsuit credible.
Many a threatened lawsuit doesn't actualize, because of insufficient reasons for one. I remember a patient whose doctor went into severe denial when she gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby, because (for whatever reason), he hadn't done an amnio and she just turned 35 during her pregnancy. The nurses (unaware of that history) quietly drew that physician's attention to the baby's facial characteristics, and he became furious, forbidding any mention of the obvious, to the family......
That situation shouldn't have caused such an uproar, because no case has been won based on a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" basis. While patients have shouted to the rooftops that the doctor should pay for future health care costs and actually take over the care of a baby personally, when parents assert they might have chosen abortion if they'd known of a serious genetic disease early enough in pregnancy, no such decision was ever reached, and often the cases haven't gotten to the hearing stage.
Unfortunately some lawyers take on worthless cases, but they soon learn that it isn't worth it. They end up with egg on their faces every time. So please don't let tachycardia and anxiety overtake you in circumstances wherein no actual harm occurred to a patient in your care. Nurses responsible for medication errors may never get to court, when the patient is unscathed, but of course they reflect badly on nurses, no matter how hectic a situation might be, or how little potential for damage there is.
In the ancient times during which I attained my nursing education at a hospital school of nursing, my classmate gave a laxative to the wrong patient, and she was suspended for 3 months. That may seem cruel and unusual punishment now, but let me tell you, there were many fewer med errors in those times. (Yes, I know you'll propose the possibility that the increased number and complexity of medications; and possibly heavier caseloads have caused the epidemic in med errors that presents now.)
Even the fear of losing everything you own in a lost battle in court doesn't seem to deter stats demonstrating evidence of sinking standards, - pixis not influencing it, or other measures that haven't lessened negligence. As we all know, lowering the nurse (not staff): patient ratio would greatly lessen the possibility of making those errors. Unfortunately the cost of lawsuits against hospitals hasn't made increased staffing seem cost effective until now.
Hopefully the close monitoring of the implementation of the Reform of Health Care Act, will bring that about. :yelclap:
Very well done and I liked the ending. My only question to nurses is whether or not they want to be pulled before a judge in a preliminary hearing. This can be a very traumatic experience for anyone.
Very well done and I liked the ending. My only question to nurses is whether or not they want to be pulled before a judge in a preliminary hearing. This can be a very traumatic experience for anyone.
Oh yes please, I've been dreaming of it since I was a child
"She's (I think the poster in question's a she - if not they can flame me :) ) not looking for a fight. She's expecting one. I've posted the same thing before. She's (!!) saying "bring it on if you want to, because I could care less"."
Yes and yes!
I totally understand that in todays world you have to be very careful and everyone absolutely should have everyone's co-workers back, but I also believe if you use common sense and good judgment you can show compassion and caring without jeopardizing your license or your employment.
That is the kind of nurse I choose to be and I think that is the kind of nurse the OP is and that is the kind of nurse I want for my family.
I think I will start calling it the HIPPO law. Cause it is one big fat beast that causes nothing but trouble!
At the facility that I'm working it is against policy to check on a patient's status after your nurse-patient relationship ended.
So if you provided care for me while I was in the hospital and then I was discharged and we happened to cross paths in the local grocery store, you couldn't ask how I was doing?
This rule is ridiculous and does not make logical sense; there are a hundred different ways that a nurse and patient could interact after the nurse-patient relationship ends wherein asking how someone is doing would be simply the polite thing to do.
ESPECIALLY in a small city.
I spent a week in the hospital many years ago and during that time I encountered a few nurses and doctors.
Because the city is only about 37,000 persons strong I ran into all of those nurses within a month or two of being discharged and all of them asked how I was and if I had any lingering problems. I thought it was wonderful, personable and kind.
I don't want to live in a world where people can't be polite without fear of breaking rules.
Response to gusblom's question in post # 109 on page 11
None of us want that. Since no testimony is required at the preliminary session, the accused nurse need not appear then and can (and should) send legal representation to it. Although I believe in handling my own legal matters myself whenever possible, it seems to me that paying for a few hours of an attorney's time is well worth it, to save my professional license.
Since nurses' "pockets" aren't deep enough to warrant adequate representation for the plaintiff (the patient), usually lawsuits involving nurses as defendants, include their employers, manufacturers of equipment that may have been used, and other deep pocketed sources......
It is very important that nurses retain their own legal representation, because lawyers employed by facilities and manufacturers will sacrifice a nurse any time if that possibility presents itself, rather than lose the case against the heavyweights involved. :bowingpur
Response to gusblom's question in post # 109 on page 11
None of us want that. Since no testimony is required at the preliminary session, the accused nurse need not appear then and can (and should) send legal representation to it. Although I believe in handling my own legal matters myself whenever possible, it seems to me that paying for a few hours of an attorney's time is well worth it, to save my professional license.
Since nurses' "pockets" aren't deep enough to warrant adequate representation for the plaintiff (the patient), usually lawsuits involving nurses as defendants, include their employers, manufacturers of equipment that may have been used, and other deep pocketed sources......
It is very important that nurses retain their own legal representation, because lawyers employed by facilities and manufacturers will sacrifice a nurse any time if that possibility presents itself, rather than lose the case against the heavyweights involved. :bowingpur
Thank you for the reply but regardless of the legal strategy no one wants to be in a legal bind. The nurses who have been through it will probably give you horror stories - nightmares, depression, physical and mental pain, bladder and bowel incontinence, drug use, divorce and interuption of normal family life, and so on. Is that what we want? So please be nice but protect yourselves out there. Think the best and expect the worst - this is a form of risk management for us, not pessimism. LOVE all you nurses out there, you too CuriosMe although you don't take the time to understand whats being discussed and questions ask and shoots from the hip - LOVE you, and if ever you need a legal fund post it and I'll be the first one there.
Thank you for the reply but regardless of the legal strategy no one wants to be in a legal bind. The nurses who have been through it will probably give you horror stories - nightmares, depression, physical and mental pain, bladder and bowel incontinence, drug use, divorce and interuption of normal family life, and so on. Is that what we want? So please be nice but protect yourselves out there. Think the best and expect the worst - this is a form of risk management for us, not pessimism. LOVE all you nurses out there, you too CuriosMe although you don't take the time to understand whats being discussed and questions ask and shoots from the hip - LOVE you, and if ever you need a legal fund post it and I'll be the first one there.
Assumptions and hyperbole are all I see in your discussions. I've yet to see any true understanding of the issue in your posts.
There's really no way for you to know what I've taken the time to understand, but that's ok....you do like your hyperbole.
(I'm guessing this may be a somewhat shocking concept....you may want to be sure you're sitting down before reading)
Disagreeing with you, doesn't mean I haven't looked at the issue. All it means is that I disagree with you.
The other PACU nurse was probably jealous because you got along better with her patient. You helped transfer her to another floor and called her directly the following day. So, you aren't violating her privacy to anyone else. Some people just don't like to see other people happy, so they have to bring them down.
lamazeteacher
2,170 Posts
HIPPAA wasn't ever intended to give patients something on which to hang a lawsuit. It was originated by insurance company lobbyists who wanted information about patients in regard to "insurability" and higher premiums for prior health problems. There was some opposition about their poking their noses into so many files, so they heavy handedly got a law passed that allows them to do that.
Someone attached a danger signal on it, for anyone whose "loose lips could sink ships" (phrase taken from WW II). I found that insulting to professionals whose education and standing made talking about patients and their conditions prohibited, always. Now it seems court phobics are taking it many steps farther.
It's important that you know (yet not base your actions on it, for obvious reasons) that there is a preliminary hearing any time a lawsuit is filed, to have a Judge determine if there are adequate circumstances, proof, etc. for a hearing. Usually it's only when "damage" to a patient has occurred (not the potential for it, but actual damage), that makes a lawsuit credible.
Many a threatened lawsuit doesn't actualize, because of insufficient reasons for one. I remember a patient whose doctor went into severe denial when she gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby, because (for whatever reason), he hadn't done an amnio and she just turned 35 during her pregnancy. The nurses (unaware of that history) quietly drew that physician's attention to the baby's facial characteristics, and he became furious, forbidding any mention of the obvious, to the family......
That situation shouldn't have caused such an uproar, because no case has been won based on a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" basis. While patients have shouted to the rooftops that the doctor should pay for future health care costs and actually take over the care of a baby personally, when parents assert they might have chosen abortion if they'd known of a serious genetic disease early enough in pregnancy, no such decision was ever reached, and often the cases haven't gotten to the hearing stage.
Unfortunately some lawyers take on worthless cases, but they soon learn that it isn't worth it. They end up with egg on their faces every time. So please don't let tachycardia and anxiety overtake you in circumstances wherein no actual harm occurred to a patient in your care. Nurses responsible for medication errors may never get to court, when the patient is unscathed, but of course they reflect badly on nurses, no matter how hectic a situation might be, or how little potential for damage there is.
In the ancient times during which I attained my nursing education at a hospital school of nursing, my classmate gave a laxative to the wrong patient, and she was suspended for 3 months. That may seem cruel and unusual punishment now, but let me tell you, there were many fewer med errors in those times. (Yes, I know you'll propose the possibility that the increased number and complexity of medications; and possibly heavier caseloads have caused the epidemic in med errors that presents now.)
Even the fear of losing everything you own in a lost battle in court doesn't seem to deter stats demonstrating evidence of sinking standards, - pixis not influencing it, or other measures that haven't lessened negligence. As we all know, lowering the nurse (not staff): patient ratio would greatly lessen the possibility of making those errors. Unfortunately the cost of lawsuits against hospitals hasn't made increased staffing seem cost effective until now.
Hopefully the close monitoring of the implementation of the Reform of Health Care Act, will bring that about. :yelclap: