Case Study Of Crowe V.

A nurse attending stated “during the morning’s second surgery, he actually dozed off. The nurse took him aside and recommended that he take a break, but he refused and returned to the operation.” The nurse here was in fault in more ways than one. This nurse should never allowed the doctor return back to operate on the patient, he should have been removed from the operating room immediately. The nurse should have

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

The facts of this case are that Dr. Guiles who is self-conscious of his prostate cancer diagnosis is treated horrendously when he finally decides to have surgery ( Buchbinder, Shanks & Buchbinder, 2014). Considering that Dr. Guiles is already sensitive about his condition, his unbearable symptoms are not helping matters (Buchbinder et al, 2014). Upon arrival at the hospital, he is treated subpar. The admitting clerk is rude and unbecoming to a patient who isn’t feeling well and who is embarrassed about his sickness (Buchbinder et al., 2014). To make matters worse, he has to find his own way up to the floor by walking, which causes him to be even later in checking in because of the need to stop frequently to urinate as well as having difficulty in walking (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Once he arrives on the floor, the charge nurse is not welcoming and unprofessional (Buchbinder et al., 2014). After figuring out what to do with the paperwork; and the nurse aide delivers Dr. Guiles to his room, the nurse aide does not offer to help settle him in (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Therefore, Dr. Guiles is faced with battling obnoxious family members who are on his bed and to make matters worse someone is in the bathroom which doesn’t help his need of having to frequently urinate (Buchbinder et al., 2014). When the issues are brought up to the charge nurse, the charge nurse accuses Dr. Guiles of wanting preferential treatment

A second issue is malpractice. Malpractice issues are always present in an unstable environment where patients will seek to remedy an incident if they feel they have been harmed (Hamric, 2009). It is important to always act in a reasonable way as a health care clinician but unfortunately there are always those who are negligent in their actions as practitioners.

The system failures identified by Judy Smetzer in the case of the newborn Miguel revealed interesting views concerning patient safety. In the article,” Lessons from Colorado: Beyond Blaming Individuals”, the difficulties of healthcare system and medication use system led to a fatal error that killed a newborn. This case emphasized that medication errors were not caused by a failure of one single element, but the whole system. According to Smetzer (1998), one of the system failures, “staff inexperience and poor documentation had tremendously contributed to the sentinel event of the article” (p.49). When health care providers put their actions lower than their knowledge, practice without proper safety measures and documentation, then it affects

Case 2 refers to the incident of a physician known as Dr.Ben and his 74 year old patient known as Mrs.Alma Norfleet. Who complained to Dr. Ben about a pain she felt in her chest during her previous ER visit. Unfortunately, Dr. BEN ignored the symptoms and referred to it as a mere chest pain that shouldn’t be taken seriously, even though she had suffered from chronic illnesses in the past such as diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis. Later, Mrs Alma arrived to the ER, chronically ill to Dr. Ben’s surprise, he ran some tests on her, and found out that she was indeed sick and suffered from heart failure. Confronted with this issue, by one of the nurses, he denied that the patient ever reported such issues to him.

Here, we prove that the contract in question should stand. On January 18th, 2016 the plaintiffs’ agent, Clayton Morrow, emailed the defendant’s agent with an offer for 277 Knapp Rd. The next day, January 19th, the defendant’s agent replied, stating that they were together on a ski trip. On January 20th, the defendant’s agent replied with a counter offer signed ‘G.T. per T.S’. When the plaintiffs’ agent contacted the defendant’s agent to notify her of the acceptance, she said, “She was jumping for joy next to me when I put the paperwork together…” This statement proves that the defendant was aware of the process and wanted to go forward with the contract. Therefore, it should be immaterial that the agent signed for the

This writer was called while in session by Nursing regards to the patient, who had a scar under her eye. Upon meeting with the patient, she appeared to be unease as she explained to this writer in a emotional tone that she does not want to be seen for a session as she is scheduled for a session tomorrow. When asked as to what happen under her eye, she stated that she fell down and tends to be clumsy. According to the nurse from the dosing window, she needs to contact the on call medical doctor to address the matter before dosing; however, the patient was unwilling to wait as she expressed the need to leave the clinic. This writer attempted to calm the patient down and asked her about her day, work, and readdressing the scar. The patient then

Here is a case in Florida that started a huge up roar involving the rights of a pregnant woman and her fetus. She was forced into medical treatment that was against her will. In addition to the issues that arose with the court order, there are concerns within the medical community with the role that the physician played with the patients’ refusal and judicial intervention.

Pharmacists’ main focus is to ensure patients have the best medication outcomes. However, Jessica Thompson never experienced this. Due to the laziest of the pharmacist and others, Jessica did not receive the help she was entitled to. First, the technician used the wrong percentage of sodium chloride solution and did properly check with the pharmacist to ensure it was the right dose. Second, the pharmacist did not follow up with the tech to ensure the correct medication and dosage was right even after seeing a spent bag, Third, the nurses and doctors should have noticed changes in Jessica’s vital signs and after her complaining about headaches. Clearly, interest was not in the patient.

The patient was seen outside with a shopping cart filled with bottles and searching the employee parking lot for bottles. The patient appeared disheveled, disoriented, and saddened. The patient informed this writer that she was search for bottles in exchange for money to go home. According to the patient, her fiancé' did not provide her with any form of transportation as the patient then reports that she has to take four buses to get from Meriden to Hartford and walked two hours to the clinic. Please note, the Program Director and Patient Care Monitor, B.J. was present. The Program Director addresses with the patient of getting herself hurt by looking through the dirt as the ground have been sprayed for rodents and potential harm of glass. This writer and the Program Director encourage the patient to come inside of the clinic as it appeared to be chilling outside and the patient did not have the proper garment to keep herself warm. Eventually the patient agreed and this writer assessed the patient well-being. Please note, the clinic offered the patient a cup of coffee and a food as the patient express to this writer about not having nothing to eat all day. During this writer encounter with this writer, the patient and fiancé' relationship is toxic as the patient continues to be verbally and emotionally

This case study involves a 21-year-old woman with a history of systemic lupus. She presented to the hospital with symptoms of dehydration. She had a recent history of dehydration with renal impairment. After receiving IV hydration in the emergency department, the physician told her her labwork was normal, but she was not feeling any better. She told him that normally, she had to receive additional IV fluids and a steroid injection. The physician told her that a steroid injection and more IV fluids were not indicated. He finally agreed to more IV hydration and the steroid at her insistance. She told him that normally, she requires an antiemetic prior to administration of steroids because she always becomes nauseated from the steroids. The physician argued with her and ultimately walked away. The patient received the steroid, and promptly became nauseated. She followed up with her own doctor the next day and had her labs redrawn only to discover that she was severely

Do you think an offer was ever made? Why? Emma Johnson’s son in law, Edward Hicks, was her agent to sell the property. Hicks, wrote a letter to several people, including Mellon, people who have previously expressed an interest in the Johnson property. Hicks stated in the letter “Our price is $7,500.” Mr. Hicks also stated, the following in the letter: “I will be interested in hearing from you further if you have any interest in this property, for as I said before, I am advising those who have asked for an opportunity to consider it.” Mr. Hick, advises in the letter that he has sent out the letter to several people. Meaning those who are still interested in the Nahant cottage should to contact him. Mr. Mellon’s telegrammed Mr. Hicks, expressing

Within a hospital room, a wretched, irritable patient receives medication to relieve their pain. However, instead of relieving the pain, the medication causes a painful reaction within the patient. Although the nurse proceeds to give the patient the accurate medication to treat the issue, not every patient’s body is the same. Therefore, in this situation, should the nurse have read more into the medication and the patient’s circumstances? How could this adverse event have been avoided? Should the nurse be punished for this calamity? Adverse Events in Nursing, written by Andersson, Willman, and Hansebo, is an academic journal focused on research done on adverse events, similar to the one above, in nursing. Due to these types of adverse situations, the article focuses on the safety of patients and how it has become a critical part in nursing.

It appears that the Court of Session declined to follow the ruling in the recent case of Jones v North West Strategic Health Authority where based on similar facts the risk of shoulder dystocia was perceived as sufficiently serious for the expectant mother to be informed of. However, it appears that the Supreme Court did follow this approach to uphold that the risk of shoulder dystocia was significant, thus Mrs Montgomery ought to have been informed of the risk.