Introduction
The lack of qualification among nursing personnel can easily lead to adverse outcomes and lower the quality of care. While fully anticipating all possible consequences of one’s actions is impossible, workers in this industry are obliged to analyze how their interactions with clients can improve or worsen clients’ well-being. Croke’s examples show improper and incorrect actions by medical employees stemming from their inability to foresee the impact of their actions, to fulfill their duties, and to neglect patients’ interests.
Analysis of the Nursing Cases
Mr. Floyd’s Case
The first case occurred because the personnel failed to attend to Mr. Floyd, who required immediate assistance. The issue stemmed from Nurse Lunsford’s improper course of action that contradicted the hospital’s standards (Croke, 2006). While it was necessary to send patients to another facility, life-death scenarios were an exception to this rule.
In the first suit, the nurse failed to deliver this information to people who decided to move a patient experiencing cardiac arrest (Croke, 2006). She also failed to take any vital signs that would have supported her suspicions about Floyd’s condition. Therefore, her role in this client’s death was apparent, while her organization’s policies did not create this danger. Poor communication often comes from a person’s inability to explain, listen, and emphasize crucial facts during interactions with peers (Burgener, 2020). Lunsford has shown that she did not care to assess Floyd’s status, nor did she explain this to the physician.
Ms. Muskopf’s Case
In turn, the second case poses a challenge stemming from the nurse’s inattentiveness to her patient’s concerns. The problem was the damage inflicted on the client. Ms. Muskopf clearly explained her understanding of the upcoming surgery, yet medical personnel did not listen to what she was requesting. While Ms. Muskopf did sign documents stating that the operation would occur on her left hand, she told the medical worker in conversations that her right hand had to be fixed (Croke, 2006).
The nurse created a situation in which the information flow was disrupted by the incorrect documentation of Ms. Muskopf’s complaints. Even though the suit was aimed at the doctor who proceeded with the operation, his assistant, the employee in question, was also found guilty. Such an issue was foreseeable and must have been accounted for during healthcare specialists’ communications at the early stage of planning. This adverse event was preventable, and similar situations are commonly incorporated into nurses’ training to prevent patient harm (Cheluvappa & Selvendran, 2020). Thus, the role this individual played in this scenario included ignoring essential steps during an interaction, which posed a threat to another person’s well-being.
Conclusion
In summary, this article presents cases of nurses’ negligence in fulfilling their duties and failure to document their actions fully. Both Lunsford and the nurse who did not note her conversations with Ms. Muskopf were found guilty of causing suffering to individuals seeking treatment. Problems outlined in these scenarios could have been prevented if nurses had a better work ethic and followed all the necessary procedures correctly. While these cases are more than two decades old, avoiding similar outcomes remains a challenge in the current healthcare environment. Therefore, workers in this industry must remain vigilant regarding their impact on others’ health and well-being, as any missed information, regardless of the reason why it was not captured, can lead to a negative outcome.
References
Burgener, A. M. (2020). Enhancing communication to improve patient safety and to increase patient satisfaction. The Health Care Manager, 39(3), 128-132.
Cheluvappa, R., & Selvendran, S. (2020). Medical negligence – Key cases and application of legislation. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 57, 205-211.
Croke, E. M. (2006). Nursing malpractice: Determining liability elements for negligent acts. Journal of Legal Nurse Consulting, 17(3), 3-7.