NUR5011 Contemporary Nursing Assignment Sample
Mr George is a 65 year old widowed father of Giovanni and Maria. He was admitted to your ward for elective lumbar surgery after several years of back pain resulting from a workplace injury. His ability to mobilise has been significantly reduced and he uses a walking aid. Mr George does not speak English and relies on his son to translate for him.
Mr Georges admission paperwork was completed with Giovanni’s assistance. Mr George is allergic to morphine. Giovanni thinks it caused an itchy rash, but Mr George cannot recall. RN Sriya has written this in the paperwork but forgot to put on a red allergy wrist band. His neurological limb assessment shows a left foot drop with full feet numbness and his vital signs are unremarkable. Mr George has a past history of atrial fibrillation. He is on digoxin (0.25 mg/day) and aspirin (100 mg/day). He is noted to be on the organ donor register and Giovanni is the documented medical treatment decision maker.
Giovanni has advised that his father does not wish to be resuscitated in an emergency, but Giovanni is not supportive of this and would like all measures taken. Giovanni has also advised that Mr George is quite anxious about his brother, Steven who is also in the hospital, having been admitted for surgery after falling in the garden. Professor Charcot, the surgeon, visited Mr George and Giovanni on the ward to see that Mr George is settling in well and reminded Mr George and Giovanni that he would perform an L2/3 laminectomy the following morning. RN Kate looked after Mr George on night shift but had difficulty communicating with him. As she thought he might have had a stroke, she placed an electronic order for an emergency CT Brain. In her hand over to the AM nurse (RN Chan), she advised that the CT results were not back but did not documented this.
When RN Chan took Mr George to theatre, they noted that a consent form signed by the patient and the surgeon was not in the file and inserted a blank form into the file for completion. RN Chan alerted Professor Charcot to this. Professor Charcot responded by yelling at RN Chan in front of other nurses and surgeons “You’re so incompetent. Who do you think you are?
If you dare speak to me like that again I will have you fired! Of course, I have already consented the patient! He would not be here if he did not know what was happening. Are you the idiot who ordered a CT Brain on my patient?. RN Chan returned to the ward, upset. They told their manager what had occurred and that they felt bullied and harassed by Professor Charcot. After surgery when Mr George returned to the ward, RN Chan noticed that the hospital consent form had still not been signed and when listening to the Registrars talking to each other about the case, overheard one say, Prof didn’t use xray and did the L4/5 by mistake. RN Chan did not say anything to their manager as they thought that the doctors would advise the patient and his son. They were also too scared to say anything because they didn’t want to be yelled at further and lose their job.
RN Chan went home very upset at the day’s events and wrote on their Facebook status update that “some surgeons are so arrogant! At least I am not the incompetent surgeon who operated on the wrong spinal level!” During the next shift and about 8 hours after surgery, it was noted by the PM nurse, RN Sriya, that Mr George had not passed urine. The protocol of the hospital requires a urinary catheter be inserted if the patient has not passed urine 8 hours after spinal surgery. RN Sriya contacted the Registrar who advised she could not arrive to insert the catheter for 2 hours as she was in surgery with another surgeon and that RN Sriya would have to do it herself. RN Sriya had not inserted a catheter into a male patient before and, assuming it couldn’t be much different to inserting female catheters, undertook the procedure. As a result, frank haematuria occurred with a large amount of blood loss. A MET (Medical Emergency Team) was called, and the patient assessed. Mr George was in a lot of pain and the attending MET doctor, Dr. Pratt orders 5mg of morphine intravenously stat. Mr George was rushed to emergency theatre and a Urologist, Miss O’Donnell, called to surgically repair the damaged urethra. During the operation Mr George went into cardiac arrest and died.
When Giovanni and Maria arrived at the hospital to see their father, RN Sriya asked “Didn’t they call you? He died in the operation”. Maria was understandably angry and upset and stated “No one called me! I am going to sue the hospital and Professor Charcot for negligence, and I am going to the coroner, media, and escalating this as far as I can take it!”.
The case study is designed to prompt your thinking and analysis of the various legal issues/considerations that may arise in health care. Please note that you are not asked to provide a personal view of the case study. The purpose of the essay is to present a coherent argument for the legal considerations that are relevant to the case study. This essay provides an opportunity for you to demonstrate in-depth understanding, and sound, logical and academic argument to support your thoughtful position on the legal considerations present in the scenario.
Structure: Your essay should follow the parameters of the marking rubric; You may use subheadings to develop your paper; The suggested assessment structure in line
- Introduction: should clearly introduce the assessment task and provide an outline of your essay
- Main body: the argument for each of the legal considerations is developed logically & demonstrates critical analysis. It is recommended that the body of your essay is separated into the three legal issues.
Conclusion: summarises the main points of your essay.
In Australia, both the government and the private sector provide healthcare. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) registration is mandatory for nurses seeking employment in Australia. Every Australian nurse must adhere to the NMBA's code of conduct. This article outlines the professional and ethical requirements for Australian nurses. The nursing profession is controlled by both customary and legislative laws. These laws include the Nurses Act, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, and the Privacy Act, among others (Harrison, 2018). Common law is the body of law that develops through judicial decisions. Professor Charcot often disregarded the responsibility of care he owed to Mr. George. He failed to get Mr. George's consent for the therapy, performed surgery on the improper level of the spine, and threatened and mistreated RN Sriya throughout the procedure. During each of these complications, the patient was anaesthetized.
The hospital's incapacity to provide its patients with adequate care may also be asserted. The hospital did not take sufficient measures to verify that the required authorization form was filled out and that Sriya, the RN, had enough training in the implantation of urinary catheters. Furthermore, no effort was taken to inform Mr. George of the potential risks associated with the treatment. The complaint must establish that the alleged loss or damage was directly caused by the alleged breach of duty (Dixit & Sambasivan, 2018).
Legal Issue 1: Negligence
Specialists, such as surgeons, may often commit the tort of negligence on the job. The term "tort" is often used to refer to reckless behaviour. It happens when a professional breaches their duty of care and causes damage to a patient. The patient alleges professional negligence has the burden of proving that the professional owed them a duty of care, that the obligation was breached, and that the loss or harm was caused by the breach.
A professional has a reasonable duty of care to the patient under their care, which requires them to take all reasonable precautions to avoid harming the patient. Regarding surgery, this entails taking all necessary steps to guarantee that the right patient receives the correct therapy and that the patient is aware of any potential dangers (Buss et al., 2018).
In this scenario, Professor Charcot's actions might be seen as a breach of his duty of care owed to Mr. George. The first problem was that he was unable to convince Mr. George to agree to the therapy. The second error was operating on the wrong portion of the patient's spine. Thirdly, he failed to inform RN Sriya about Mr. George's possibly fatal allergy to morphine. Fourth, he persistently harassed and intimidated RN Chan.
In addition, due to Mr. George, the hospital may have violated its duty of care on many occasions. It did not thoroughly verify that a legitimate authorization form was submitted and signed. The second worry is that RN Sriya was not adequately screened to ensure she has the required skills to insert urinary catheters (Rosebrock et al., 2020). Thirdly, nothing was done to ensure that Mr. George was informed of the dangers involved with the procedure, which would have been considered reasonable under the circumstances. The complaint must establish that the alleged loss or damage was directly caused by the alleged breach of duty. In this case, the loss or damage at issue is Mr. George's death. If Professor Charcot hadn't been so careless, Mr. George would be alive and well today. If he had gotten adequate care and been informed of the risks, he could have lived. If the hospital had been more responsible, Mr. George may still be alive today. Mr. George would have gotten proper care, a valid permission form would have been completed, and he would have been informed of the possible hazards of the surgery if the hospital had been more diligent.
The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 (HSWA 1974) mandates that companies preserve the health and safety of their employees at work. This obligation for assignment help involves protecting workers from intimidation and harassment (Chun Tie et al., 2018). It is hard to establish whether the hospital exceeded its obligation by failing to take adequate safeguards to protect RN Sriya from intimidation and harassment by Professor Charcot. Alternatively, it is likely that the hospital ignored this requirement.Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act of 1974, employers are required to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees in the workplace to the greatest degree practical (HSWA, 1974). This duty comprises safeguarding employees against intimidation and harassment in the workplace. It is arguable whether the hospital breached its duty by failing to take enough safeguards to protect RN Sriya from intimidation and harassment by Professor Charcot. It is possible, however, that medical workers neglected their responsibility.
Professionals, such as surgeons, may incur the tort of negligence in the course of their employment. Liability results from a violation of the professional's duty of care to the patient, which results in the patient suffering some kind of harm. Patients who allege medical professionals broke a duty of care due to them must also demonstrate that the violation directly resulted in the losses or damages they're seeking compensation for.
A professional owes their patient a duty of reasonable care, which entails doing all in their power to prevent the patient from suffering any damage that may reasonably be expected to result from the professional's actions. For a surgeon, this means taking all necessary precautions before surgery, such as checking the patient's identity and medical history to make sure they are a good candidate for the treatment and explaining the potential dangers to the patient.
The most common tort faced by healthcare personnel is carelessness. The patient may suffer physical hurt, pathological harm, mental harm, or even death as a consequence of the nurse's carelessness. Damages are incurred when something terrible happens, such as an accident induced by medical treatment that prolongs a patient's hospital stay and/or leaves them permanently incapacitated after discharge, or even causes death. This sequence of events begins with the imposition of a duty of care and continues through the exercise of inadequate or non-existent care (henceforth termed "negligence"), the occurrence of an adverse event, and the inflicting of injury. In cases of negligence or wrongdoing, the court may award damages to the injured party. In some circumstances, a negligent person may be held accountable for compensating damages to compensate for economic or non-economic losses, in addition to extraordinary damages. Long ago, carelessness was characterized by common law. In 2002, in response to the conclusions of Justice Ipp, all Australian jurisdictions enacted Civil Liability Acts with provisions addressing medico-legal malpractice (Cross& Cross, 2020).
Employers have a responsibility to protect their workers' health, safety, and welfare as much as possible under the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 (HSWA). This obligation includes safeguarding workers from hostile work environments. It might be argued that the hospital in this instance failed in its obligation to safeguard RN Sriya from the bullying and harassment of Professor Charcot.
The obligation to guarantee, so far as is practically feasible, the health, safety, and welfare of workers at work is imposed on employers by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). This obligation includes taking measures to prevent bullying and harassment of staff members. It might be argued that the hospital in this instance failed in its obligation to provide RN Sriya with enough protection from the bullying and harassment of Professor Charcot.
Patients like Mr. George who have been injured by unintended side effects may or may not choose to file a lawsuit. Patients who successfully obtained compensation may not have been under the supervision of a nurse at the time of the occurrence. Unbelievably frequent prescription errors and failures to recognize negative consequences among Australian healthcare practitioners are among the most serious concerns affecting the nation's patients. There is a surprising mismatch between the reported occurrence of medical misbehaviour and the amount of money paid out in settlements, according to new statistics on negligence claims in Australia. according to current research, the number of new claims submitted has decreased, or the pace of new claims has remained constant (Kirkegaard et al., 2022). The effectiveness of conflict resolution is growing. There is tension between the need to maintain a high standard of care and the prevalent practice of rewarding patients for unexpected outcomes. In contrast to their colleagues in New Zealand, who have access to a no-fault medical reparations scheme, health professionals in Australia must adhere to common law and statute-based negligence regimes.
As a basis for responsibility, carelessness is rapidly extending to all spheres of human activity and is today the most important and pervasive tort. In recent decades, the legal notion of carelessness has expanded to include economic loss and psychological illnesses in addition to bodily suffering and property damage. In order to achieve justice and lessen the burden on society as a whole, it was difficult but necessary to develop a legal system that is both predictable and consistent.
Despite the fact that each doctor has a unique set of beliefs and values, they are all bound by a set of professional standards that serve as the foundation of their work. Doctors must always act in the best interests of their patients and adhere to the most stringent standards of safe and effective care. They must be dependable and possess a solid moral compass. Patients have faith in their doctors because they perceive them to possess not just the required medical expertise, but also exemplary character traits such as honesty, dependability, and compassion. Patients have confidence in their doctors and expect them to safeguard their confidentiality. Physicians are obligated to safeguard and enhance their patients and the general public's health. In a successful medical facility, the patient’s needs are always first. Medical practitioners must recognize that each patient is unique and collaborate with patients to adjust therapy to each individual's requirements and goals. This requires cultural awareness, which includes knowing and respecting one's own culture and values as well as those of others, and recognizing that cultural differences may affect the doctor-patient interaction and the delivery of health care. Every aspect of safe and effective medical care requires superior communication (Sotomayor-Castillo et al., 2021).
Legal Issue 2: Misconduct
The "right to be treated with dignity and respect" refers to a patient's legal entitlement to treatment that respects and upholds their inherent worth as a person. Patients have the freedom to refuse medical practitioners' degrading or disrespectful treatment. This privilege was thus created for this purpose (Broom et al., 2022). Professor Charcot was the aggressor in the continuous bullying and harassment issue between RN Chan and Professor Charcot.
A physician is not required to provide care to anybody who seeks it, but he must be prepared to meet injured or unwell patients at any time. His duty is to offer compassionate treatment to his patients. Unless required by law, the confidentiality of a patient's medical records must always be maintained. Without exaggerating or trivializing, he must convey the gravity of the patient's illness. Once a patient has been admitted to the hospital, they must not be forgotten (Fisher et al., 2022).
When decisions concerning terminal care are made without comprehensive information or without engaging the patient or the patient's family, both ethics and the law are put to the test. Certain decisions regarding Mr. George seem to have been made without his complete consent or awareness. In addition, it seems that Mr. George and his family were not supplied with crucial information, which led them to believe they had been misled and lose faith in the medical professionals' abilities to care for them (Zheng et al., 2021).
Respecting the dying person's right to autonomy is crucial while making decisions concerning their care. Patients should participate in treatment decisions to the extent that they are able and willing to do so. Consent based on education is a crucial part of this operation, and it is essential that the patient has all the information necessary to make an educated decision. If the patient is incapable of making decisions, family members should be included.It seems that Mr. George was not given sufficient information to make an informed decision about the treatment he would receive. This is troublesome given the circumstances since it suggests that his autonomy was not respected (Minnican& O’Toole, 2020). In addition, it seems that Giovanni was not given all the information he need to make an informed decision on his father's treatment. In the case of an emergency, Giovanni would not have been able to make an informed decision on his father's resuscitation, which is problematic for a variety of reasons.
It is feasible for doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to use their specialized knowledge outside of their regular work environment. Some physicians may not fully appreciate the responsibilities of medical professionals outside of their expertise. If there is no established therapeutic relationship between a doctor and patient and the doctor has no intention of aiding, one of three outcomes may occur (Gao, 2021). It is conceivable for a doctor to assert they are one but refuse to assist in any way, to acknowledge they are one but refuse to identify themselves as one, or to vehemently deny they are one. Regardless of ethical problems, a physician's actions and public image may have significant legal consequences. Elements of state legislation related to legal duties to aid, which vary widely from state to state, have been recommended for national study and revision.
The doctor-patient relationship can only endure if both parties adhere to the highest professional standards. This needs impeccable manners, respect for others, compassion, and honesty, all of which must be shown. Keeping in mind that every patient is unique Except for exceptional circumstances such as where disclosure is required by law or is in the public interest, respecting patients' right to privacy and keeping their medical information confidential. Patients and, if appropriate, their family members who help them manage their health care should be encouraged and supported in their attempts to become active participants in their own health care (Burström, 2022). Supporting and assisting patients in their efforts to improve their health literacy and make decisions based on enhanced information about their conditions and treatment options is essential in patient care. recognizing the power dynamic between doctor and patient and abstaining from exploiting the patient in any manner (including but not limited to physical, emotional, sexual, or financial means). When a doctor and patient are able to communicate successfully, their connection becomes stronger. This means not just listening to the patient, but also responding to their health-related worries and goals. You should inquire about your patients' use of conventional, alternative, and complementary therapy, as well as any other health recommendations. They should include any other health recommendations they have received. Patients should be given enough opportunity to contest or reject intervention and treatment, and they should be informed of the nature and need of all aspects of their clinical care, including exams and investigations. The process of teaching patients about their illness and available treatment options, including the advantages and disadvantages of each (Vardoulakis, 2021). Assuring that the patient has understood the information provided and is aware of any significant risks associated with any component of the treatment plan suggested for their illness. When possible, accommodate patients' special linguistic, cultural, and communication needs, and be aware of how these needs affect patients' ability to comprehend what is being communicated; respond to patients' questions and keep them abreast of the progression of their clinical condition. Learn about and use qualified language interpreters and cultural interpreters to meet the linguistic and cultural needs of your patients. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship provides a website providing information about government-funded translation services in Australia (Allen et al., 2020).
When all employees involved in a patient's care are able to communicate efficiently and treat one another with respect and compassion, the quality of care offered to the patient is enhanced. Transparent, efficient, amicable, and prompt communication with the other medical personnel and doctors caring for the patient is essential to the success of medical practice. recognizing and celebrating the efforts of everyone involved in a patient's care Maintaining a professional and courteous manner at all times, particularly while conversing online with coworkers. suggesting, allocating, and transferring work to others You may delegate care by requesting another healthcare practitioner to treat the patient in your place; but, you will retain ultimate responsibility for the patient's health (Kirkegaard et al., 2022). If a patient needs a second opinion or specialized care, their primary care physician may refer them to a specialist. When you refer a patient, you normally delegate (at least a portion of) the patient's care to another medical professional, either temporarily or permanently, depending on the circumstances, such as when the patient requires treatment outside of your area of expertise. The phrase "handover" refers to the transfer of full responsibility for patient care from one healthcare practitioner to another. A good medical practice consists of taking all steps to ensure that the individual you are entrusting with a task has the training, skills, and experience to provide the level of care you expect (Osborn et al., 2022). Remember that even if you absolve yourself of responsibility for the choices and actions of those to whom you delegate authority, you will still be held accountable for the overall care of the patient and your decision to distribute authority. This is true despite the fact that you will absolve yourself of accountability for the behaviour of people to whom you have delegated power. Never break the chain of continuous care for a patient by failing to provide pertinent information about the patient and the necessary treatment by failing to give the necessary information.
Legal Issue 3: Consent
In this instance, the nurses' actions have far-reaching ramifications that may be pursued via the judicial system. According to all parties concerned, Mr. George did not provide authorization for the procedure that was performed on him. Because his rights have been infringed, he may opt to file a lawsuit against the hospital and the physician. Consent based on education is a crucial part of this operation, and it is essential that the patient has all the information necessary to make an educated decision. Certain choices concerning Mr. George were made without his knowledge or consent (James et al., 2021). It had a bad influence on him as a result. This is troublesome given the circumstances since it suggests that his autonomy was not respected. Mr. George's experience highlights the need of making ethically and legally sound choices regarding end-of-life care. It is essential to respect patients' preferences and give them all the information they want to make an informed decision (Penman & Tighe, 2019).
As the situation presents, it is debatable whether or not Professor Charcot acted responsibly toward Mr. George. The first problem was that he didn't bother to get Mr. George's approval for the operation. Second, he cut into the patient's spine at the improper level. Third, he didn't do enough to make sure RN Sriya knew of Mr. George's morphine sensitivity. And last, he harassed and threatened RN Chan. The hospital may have broken its duty of care to Mr. George in various ways. To begin with, it didn't check to see whether the right permission form was signed. Second, it didn't check whether RN Sriya had had enough instruction on how to place urinary catheters. Third, it didn't do enough to warn Mr. George about potential complications from the operation. All of the plaintiff's suffering must have resulted from the defendant's alleged breach of duty. The death of Mr. George is the alleged loss or injury in this lawsuit. It might be argued that if Professor Charcot had followed protocol and warned Mr. George of the potential dangers, Mr. George would still be alive today. Mr. George may not have died if he had received the appropriate treatment, signed the appropriate permission form, and been informed of the potential consequences of his decision, all of which were overlooked due to the hospital's carelessness.
Consent is one of the mandatory requirements in a healthcare setting as it ensures the patient or the particular individual is aware of the actions that will be considered. It will help to avoid legal tribunals in case of any misery. From the following case study, it has been observed that Professor Charcot was too much arrogant and without any consent, he performs critical surgery to the patient Mr. George. After the action, the patient encountered severe physical issues due to the inability to urinate and died facing severe pain and medical complexity. It also indicates a lack of duty of care which is a major legal issue. As per the study of Yildirim et al, (2021), it is mandatory for any medical professionals to sign proper consent before proceeding with medical operations that might lead to serious consequences. The same is missing in the case which was found the very next day when RN Sriya was on duty for the next shift. Due to such actions, the family members and relatives claim that they will lodge complaints against all the staff. Despite informing by juniors about the consent the professor acts in his own interest. It is clearly a violation of National Human Right Committee guidelines. Therefore, as per this regulatory and legal framework also the medical practitioner is responsible for the punishable offences.
Considering the perception of the family members l, they are not wrong as none of them is informed about the consent or any of them are not aware of the serious condition or death of the patient. Here, the legal issue associated with lack of duty of care also comes into the picture. As opined by Waterhouse, (2019), the guidelines of "duty of care" clearly indicate that if any casualties occur due to any kind of negligence of individuals assigned in the responsibility, then the other party can sue. Hence, as per this rule, the hospital authorities might face serious legal consequences if the family members of Mr. George claim. However, the claim will be much stronger if it will be against the professor because from the case study it has been found that he is the main culprit.
Informed consent clearly indicates that both parties agree with the terms and conditions along with the consequences of the actions (Nouwens et al. 2020). In the following case, there is no question about the acceptance as no consent has been provided. Apart from that, there was also no verbal confirmation from the patient on the basis of which the entire result can be considered a consequence of the contract. Apart from that, as per the contract law, all medical professionals must check all patient-related documentation before considering any serious actions. In the current case scenario, it has been found that rather than checking the updated medical records the professor had considered the treatment actions that finally resulted in the death of the patient. Therefore, as per the contract law also the professor is guilty.
The case study reflects that there is a linguistic barrier associated with Mr. George as he was unable to understand English properly. As per the knowledge of Gerke et al., (2020), any linguistic challenge makes informed consent invalid as it does not serve the purpose of complete understanding. Hence, in that case, it was the responsibility of the medical professionals at the health care to elaborate everything to the patient. Then the criteria of verbal acceptance can be fulfilled which might lead to less legal trouble. Apart from that, it was also the responsibility of the medical professionals to discuss everything in front of the translator. Then it would make the understanding level superior that could be better to fulfil the criteria for informed consent.
From the case study it has been observed that l, there is no concern about the perception of Mr. George. Medical professionals execute their work as per their own interests. It is also a violation of consent guidelines. According to Döhlaet al. (2020), informed consent endures all the actions or experimentation that will be done, with the permission of the individual. As approval is missing in the case, therefore, it can be also counted as a legal issue associated with the context of consent.
The case study indicates that the professor threatened RN Chan with interference. It was her duty to inform the professor as well as it also falls under the basic rights considering the health and safety of the patient. The self-biased mentality in this case causes the severe problem of a patient's death. Therefore, such offence must be punishable as per the available legal guidelines. Moreover, the operating process of healthcare also needs to be changed to ensure the avoidance of such incidents in future.
Vulnerable people and groups are other aspects associated with the case of Mr. George. In this case, the professor protects his own interest through unethical actions rather than the actual actions that need to be considered. As per the study of Coleman et al. (2022), healthcare professionals must serve community interests rather than their own to match the nationalised treatment standards. Hence, considering this legal aspect also the professor is solely liable for the situation of Mr. George.
By analysing all the aspects, it can be stated that the family members need to lodge complaints specifically against the professor rather than all individuals to get a better response. Apart from that, the healthcare authorities need to organize investigations into the professor and consider strict punishments for such actions. It will help to prevent such unwanted events in future and avoid any legal obstacles in the operations.
- The nurses conduct in this instance have a lot of potential legal ramifications.
The problem of permission comes up first. Mr. George obviously did not provide informed permission before his procedure. This is a potential violation of his legal rights, which might result in a lawsuit for compensation.
The second problem is the CT scan. Whether or if Mr. George gave his permission for this surgery is unclear. If he didn't, the hospital may be in violation of federal law for executing an intrusive surgery without permission.
The urinary catheter is a problem, which brings us to point number three. Evidently, the nurse in question lacked the skills essential to perform a proper catheter insertion. The resulting anguish was so severe that it ultimately proved fatal for Mr. George. There is a possibility that the hospital may be held responsible for any damages that occur because of their carelessness.
The surgeon's actions are a problem, which brings us to our fourth point. The surgeon's behaviour toward the nurse constituted bullying and harassment, given his hostile and insulting tone. The nurse may file a lawsuit as a result of this.
Mr. George's passing is a last concern. This happened because the surgeon and hospital workers were careless. The hospital and the doctor might be held liable for Mr. George's family's suffering.
In this instance, the nurses' actions have far-reaching ramifications that may be pursued via the judicial system. To start, there is the problem of permission requests. According to all parties concerned, Mr. George did not provide authorization for the procedure that was performed on him. As a result of this infringement of his legal rights, he is entitled to monetary compensation. The second issue is a fault with the completed CT scan. Unknown is Mr. George's level of collaboration with this operation. If he hadn't given his consent, the hospital may face legal implications for performing an invasive procedure on a patient without his consent. In the third situation, the urinary catheter represents a major concern. Clearly, the nurse lacked the required expertise to insert the catheter into the patient. Mr. George passed away as a result of his trauma. The hospital may be held accountable for negligent treatment given the circumstances. Fourthly, the surgeon's behaviour is unsettling. The surgeon's behaviour toward the nurse, which included being rude and disrespectful, might be seen as an attempt to intimidate or harass the nurse. A nurse in this situation may choose to file a lawsuit against the medical institution for compensation. The final issue is Mr. George's passing. This happened due to the carelessness of the medical personnel and surgeon. The family of Mr. George may file a lawsuit against the hospital and the doctor for compensation.