Showing posts with label Accreditation of nursing homes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Accreditation of nursing homes. Show all posts

Friday, 25 November 2011

Nursing Negligence


Nursing Negligence
http://www.rkmc.com/Nursing-Negligence.htm
In the health care field, the term malpractice originally encompassed only the negligent wrongs of a physician.  In the past, a distinct division existed between a nurse and a physician.  The nurse functioned within a much more defined framework.  Rather than diagnose patients, treat symptoms, or prescribe medication, it was sufficient for the nurse to wait for and then simply implement a physician’s order.  In years past it was virtually unprecedented for a nurse to criticize a physician’s order.

The role of the nurse, however, has changed.  Today, nurses commonly assume functions previously performed only by the physician.  In hospitals and clinics across the country, nurses have assumed the responsibilities such as the actual examination, diagnosis, and treatment of a patient, oftentimes without any direct supervision by a physician.

As nursing has matured into an increasingly advanced, sophisticated, specialized, and independent profession, the nurse’s role in providing patient care has also expanded – a reality that is particularly true in the face of the ever-increasing demand for cost-conscious health care.  As a result, liability for basic nursing negligence has shifted to its “professional” counterpart – malpractice liability.[1]  No other speciality relies more heavily on nurses to assess patients and evaluate treatment options than the field of obstetrical nursing, and the stakes for the patients and families involved could not be higher.

Professional Liability for Nursing Negligence

All nurses owe duties to the patients they serve.  According to the American Nurses Association, a nurse “promotes, advocates for, and strives to protect the health, safety, and rights of the patient.”[2]  Additionally, a nurse is both responsible and accountable for his or her individual nursing practice and will determine the appropriate delegation of tasks consistent with the nurse’s obligation to provide optimum patient care.[3]  In order to ensure that they are satisfying these ethical and legal responsibilities owed to their patients, modern obstetrical nurses play a prominent and important role in the evaluation of a woman as she progresses with her labor, and the ability of the fetus to successfully tolerate the labor.[4]  As the person with the greatest exposure to the patients, it is oftentimes ultimately the responsibility of the nurse to make crucial assessments of patient status and effectively communicate the status reports to the physician also charged with the care of the patient.  When there is a breakdown in this necessary line of communication, tragic results can follow.
Nurses with specialized training or extensive experience are held to a higher standard of care, corresponding to what a reasonable and prudent nurse with the same training or experience would have done in the same or substantially similar set of circumstances.[6]  Under this standard, an obstetrical nurse with vast experience and/or training will be presumed to recognize potential problems physician who restates the order or if the nurse relies on the physician’s assertion that the physician will take full responsibility employed by members of the nursing profession.  A nurse will be liable in tort if harm ensues because he or she does not have or use such knowledge, skill, care, or diligence.[7]

Chain of Command

A nurse that works for a hospital is legally obligated to be aware of these policies and procedures and to comply with the institution’s rules and regulations.[8] Procedures, rules, regulations, and by-laws of various health care institutions can be used to define the nursing standard of care.[9]  For example, a hospital ‘s procedure manual for nurses or a nurse’s job description may set forth in detail specific rules of conduct for nurses.   On occasion, a nurse may be confronted by a physician’s order which directly conflicts with written hospital policy.  If an order is not in accord with accepted medical standards, practices, customary procedures, hospital policies, or regulations, the nurse must defer, question, and even contravene the order.[10]

Nurses have a duty to advocate for the patient through the organizational chain of command when they believe that the physician is unresponsive to concerns about the patient’s condition or is making inappropriate patient care decisions.[11]  The chain of command is a specific course of action involving administrative and clinical lines of authority established to ensure effective conflict resolution in patient care situations.  A hypothetical example of such a policy may be as follows:

A nurse with concerns about patient care reports those concerns to the attending physician.  If after this conversation the concerns are not alleviated, the nurse will proceed to take the concerns to the following people in the following order until such concerns have been alleviated:

(1) Charge Nurse
(2) Nurse Manager or Administrative Supervisor
(3) Chief of the Department
(4) Chief of Staff
(5) Director of Hospital

A nurse is generally encouraged to call on or consult with nurse supervisors or with other physicians on the hospital staff concerning those matters, and when the patient’s condition reasonably requires it, the nurse has a duty to make those calls and or consultations when they are within the ordinary care and skill required by the relevant standard of conduct.[12]  When a nurse believes that executing an order would pose a clear risk of harm to the patient, he or she must not comply with the order.[13]  If after attempting clarification and confirmation, the order is not properly clarified, confirmed, or corrected, the nurse is obligated not to carry the order out.  If the physician insists that the nurse obey the order, despite being advised of potential problems, the nurse should delay executing the order and immediately report the matter to the nurse’s supervisor, and, if necessary, to another physician or another responsible hospital official.

If for example, a nurse is concerned that fetal monitoring strips indicate a fetus may be suffering some kind of distress, and after bringing his or her concerns to the attention of the attending physician the concerns remain unaddressed, the prudent nurse will bring those concerns to the attention of the Charge Nurse, and so forth, until those concerns have been properly and fully resolved.  The nurse who initiates the chain of command policy in such a situation is actively ensuring that his or her duty to act as an advocate for the patient has been satisfied.  Where no duty has been breached, malpractice liability cannot attach.

Conclusion

Nurses caring for patients have a responsibility to be an advocate for the patient. While not bearing responsibility for making medical decisions and judgments, the nurse bears significant accountability for intervening when it appears that decisions and judgments are not consistent with the standard of care. An effective communication policy that is well known by all nursing staff and physicians can, by its very existence, improve the quality of care delivered to patients, thereby improving patient outcomes and hopefully lessening the number of catastrophically injured infants.

Additional References

1.         Karen A. Ballard, Patient Safety: A Shared Responsibility, Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, Vol. #8 No. #3, Manuscript 4 (September 30, 2003) available at www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic22/tpc22_4.html.
2.         Frank J. Cavico & Nancy M. Cavico, The Nursing Profession in the 1990's: Negligence and Malpractice Liability, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 557 (1995).

3.         Mary E. O’Keefe, Nursing Practice and the Law (Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co. 2001).

[1]           See generally Rixey v. West Paces Ferry Hosp., Inc., 916 F.2d 608, 615 (11th Cir. 1990) (stating the appropriate cause of action  has now transformed into a malpractice action).  See also Lamb v. Candler Gen. Hosp., Inc., 413 S.E.2d 720, 722 (Ga. 1992); Ramage v. Cent. Ohio Emergency Serv., 592 N.E.2d 828, 833 (Ohio 1992).
[2]           American Nurses Association, Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements, (Washington, D.C.: American Nurses Publishing 2001).
[3]           American Nurses Association, Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements, (Washington, D.C.: American Nurses Publishing 2001).
[4]           Normal Pregnancy, Labor, And Delivery, The Merck Manual, available at http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section18/chapter249/249e.jsp.
[6]           See, e.g., Wheeler v. Yettie Kersting Mem. Hosp., 866 S.W.2d 32, 46-47 (Tx. Ct. App. 1993) (holding nurses liable for malpractice where they failed to correctly assess a pregnant patient, failed to use equipment to assess fetal heart tomes, and failed to provide the physician with an explanation as to why the patients records were incomplete).  See also Frank J. Cavico & Nancy M. Cavico, The Nursing Profession in the 1990's: Negligence and Malpractice Liability, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 557, 565 (1995).
[7]           See, e.g., Berdyck v. Shinde, 613 N.E.2d 1014, 1017, 1023 (Ohio 1993).  
[8]           See, e.g., St. Elizabeth Hosp. v. Graham, 883 S.W.2d 433, 437 (Tex. App. 1994) (noting nurses failed to comply with hospital’s policies and rules in failure to restrain case); Tobia v. Cooper Hosp. Univ. Med. Ctr., 643 A.2d 1, 4 (N.J. 1994) (holding nurses committed malpractice by not complying with hospital policy of not leaving patients unattended on emergency room stretchers with side rails down); Scribner v. Hillcrest Med. Ctr., 866 P.2d 437, 441 (Okla. Ct. App. 1992) (noting evidence clearly demonstrated that nurses were either ignorant of or failed to adhere to hospital policies concerning patient identification).
[9]           See Alvis v. Henderson Obstetrics, 592 N.E.2d 678, 682 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (noting nursing negligence when the nurses failed to detect a baby’s breech position in time for a doctor to perform a cesarean delivery despite the hospital policy requiring that its labor and delivery nurses be able to determine the presenting part of the baby by doing a vaginal exam).
[10]          See, e.g., Volger v. Dominguez, 624 N.E.2d 56, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (“If a nurse . . . fails to . . . question a doctor’s order when [it is] not in accord with standard medical practice and the omission results in injury to the patient, the hospital will be liable for its [nurse] negligence.”); Czubinsky v. Doctors Hosp., 188 Cal. Rptr. 685, 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (holding the nurse liable for the injuries to the patient when the nurse chose to follow the physician’s orders and leave the patient while there was a specific hospital policy requiring that one member of the surgical team remain with a post-operative patient).
[11]          Mary E. O’Keefe, Nursing Practice and the Law 140-141(Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co. 2001).  See generally Gladney v. Sneed, 742 So. 2d 642, 646 (La. Ct. App. 1999) (noting nurse testimony “that when a nurse sees that a necessary transfer has not been made, she must go to the ‘chain of command’ and ‘above the doctor’ to take action”).
[12]          Berdyck, 613 N.E.2d at 1024; Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Estrada, 872 S.W.2d 759, 763 (Tex. App. 1993) (stating that if a drug order is contradicted because it contains abnormally high dosages, incompatible medications, or conflicts with the patient’s allergies or physical condition, the prudent nurse will refuse the order and immediately seek corroboration from the prescribing physician or other health care provider as indicated by hospital policy).
[13]          See, e.g., Koeniguer, 422 N.W.2d at 604 (applying “danger sign to the well-being of any patient” standard).

Friday, 26 November 2010

Accreditation of nursing homes. Module 3

Medical establishments to get registered by Feb 10, 2010
Times of India, The, Jan 18, 2010
DHARWAD: All private medical establishments in the state will be required to get registered with the respective registration authority in their districts before February 10.

The Karnataka State Private Medical Establishments Act 2007 which has been notified on November 10, 2009 stipulates that all the private medical establishments need to be registered with the appropriate authorities.

The deputy commissioner of the district is the chairman of the registration authority. The district health and family welfare officer, president and secretary of the district unit of Indian Medical Association are the members of the committee.

Giving details of the provisions of the Act here on Saturday, DC Darpan Jain said all private nursing homes, hospitals, dispensaries, consultation units, clinics, pathology laboratories, diagnostic centres, radiology/scan centres and other such units come under the purview of the Act.

INSPECTION COMMITTEE TO BE FORMED

The Act stipulates that these establishments must maintain minimum standards and display the schedule of fees charged on a board or brochure.They are also required to maintain records of each patient visiting the establishment and provide the details to the patient or his relatives on demand. A local inspection committee comprising of experts will be formed by the deputy commissioner. The committee will inspect the establishments.

Darpan Jain said the registration will be valid for a period of five years and has to be renewed after five years. He said he had informed the IMAs local unit to inform its members to register their units with the authorities under the Act failing which they would be forced to close business.

>>
Some highlights..

1.Schedule of charges to be notified - this means every hospital has have a list of medical treatments provided and their corresponding costs listed like a menu card in a restuarant.


2.Standards :- The private medical establishments have to follows the minimum standards specified by rules notified. So every citizen will get a minimum assured level of treatment.

3. Obligations of Private Medical Establishments :-administer necessary first aid and take other life saving or stabilising emergency measures in all medico-legal or potentially medico-legal cases such as victims of road accidents, accidental or induced burns or poisoningor criminal assaults and the like which present themselves or are brought before it at the establishment . This makes sure that nobody is denied treatment in the event of unforseen emergencies.

http://praja.in/en/blog/vinod-shankar/2009/10/26/karnataka-private-medical-establishments-act-2007

>>


Karnataka drafts bill to regulate private sector
Soumya V - Mumbai

The Task Force on Health and Family welfare, appointed by the Govt of Karnataka, has taken up the onus of registrating and accreditating private healthcare institutions in the state.

The task force, along with various medical bodies, has prepared the Karnataka Private Healthcare Establishments Bill, 2000. The Bill has been tabled in the state assembly and is expected to come up for discussions in the forthcoming assembly session. The task force is pushing hard for the passing of the bill, it is learnt.

The Bill, if passed, will replace the Karnataka Private Nursing Home (Regulation) Act, 1976. The bill is designed to have effective control over private healthcare establishments in the State. It will cover all private establishments including health clubs.

Speaking to Express Healthcare Management, H Sudarshan, chairman of the task force, said that establishment norms are different for district and state level centres. “The regulations are not to threaten them,” he clarified. Public hospitals are not included as these are already being regulated through mandatory ISO 9000 conferred by the state. Pilot projects for ISO accreditation have been carried out in 10 public hospitals so far.

The Bill, among other things, provides for registration of private health care establishment and suspension and cancellation of registration; constitution of registration authority and local inspection committee; classifying healthcare establishments with reference to different standards and to require the healthcare establishments to conform to the standards regarding staff, operation theatre, buildings, equipment etc; requiring every private health care establishment to notify the fees structure charged by it for different medical treatment and other services; obligations of private health care establishments; and penalties for contravention of the Act and the Rules.

The committee for registration will comprise members from departments of Health and Family Welfare, Health Services, Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy, Karnataka Medical Council, ISM Council, Homeopathy Council, Indian Medical Association, and Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals. Besides, the committee will also nominate one general physician (allopathy), one representative of private establishments of ayurveda and two representatives nominated by the nursing homes to represent different regions of the state.

The local inspection committee for Bangalore metropolitan area will comprise of health officer; representative of Karnataka Medical Council; secretary, Indian Medical Association; president of Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals, Bangalore; deputy director, Dept. of ISM&H; president, Indian Association of General Practitioners; and one senior nurse.

The standards will be set separately for different groups (urban/ rural, size, other categories), as determined by the registration authority. Expert committees will be constituted by the registration authority for setting standards for each group. The composition, terms and conditions, powers and responsibilities, etc, will be laid down by the Rules.

Karnataka is not the only state to lay down regulations for the healthcare sector. The neighbouring state of Maharashtra has also proposed the Clinical Establishments Act to replace the archiac Bombay Nursing Home Act. However, the proposed Clinical Establishments Act will only oversee registration of healthcare establishments in the state. The accreditation, in all probability will be looked up by the Health Care Accreditation Council - a body comprising various medical bodies.


>>

>>
Many hospitals yet to register under KPME Act


October 24 deadline may not be extended
550 establishments in Bangalore have registered

KPME Act was notified in November 2009

Bangalore: Although the deadline for private medical establishments to register under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments (KPME) Act, 2007, has been extended up to October 24, many are yet to sign in.

Of the estimated 15,000 medical establishments, including diagnostic centres in the city, only 550 have registered so far, while owners of 4,850 establishments have applied for registration. In addition, 400 establishments from other parts of the State have registered, say health officials.

Earlier deadline

Although the State Department of Health and Family Welfare extended the initial February 10 deadline through an amendment to the KPME Act, the response has been poor.

“There is no excuse after October 24 for the existing establishments as this is a one-time extension.

“If they do not apply by then, we will strictly follow the provisions in the Act to penalise them,” E.V. Ramana Reddy, Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, told The Hindu.

Quoting the Act, District Health Officer (Bangalore Urban) M. Thimappa said those who do not register before the deadline would be liable for punishment, including imprisonment.

“We have set up a District Registration Authority Committee comprising representatives from the Indian Medical Association and AYUSH Board.

“This committee has started inspecting the establishments that have applied for registration. We will randomly conduct inspections even after the deadline and initiate action against those who have not registered,” he said.

Appeal

Calling upon all the private medical establishments to register, Dr. Thimappa said: “Owners of smaller establishments may be under the impression that they need not register. But, according to the Act, all have to compulsorily register or face action.”

However, sources in the department said that it would be difficult for the Government to punish the violators.

“To ensure that the private medical establishments get more time to register, the Government has amended the Act within a few months of it being notified on November 10, 2009. It is rare that the Government amends Acts within a short period from notification,” the sources said.

H. Paramesh, president of Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes' Association (PHANA), said most of the association members had applied for registration. “But we are yet to be issued registration certificates,” he said.

The Act is aimed at regulating and controlling private medical establishments, including diagnostic centres, health clubs and alternative medicine centres, to ensure that people get quality healthcare.

What the Act says

According to the Act, every private medical establishment will have to prominently display the rates charged by the hospital for various medical procedures and facilities.

The new law also stipulates minimum standards in terms of physical infrastructure, technical know-how and staff qualifications to set up a private healthcare institution.

Until now, a trade licence from the local civic body and a no-objection certificate from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board were enough to open a private health facility.