The Legality of Risk Management - Essay Example

?Legality of risk management Introduction Hospital organizations are entities and are to laws and regulations such as law of persons that stipulate rights and obligations of hospitals as organizations and hospital employees as individuals. Negligent tort is one of the common liabilities that are incurred in hospital ‘set-ups’. This paper seeks to research a legal case that involves risk management in a hospital organization. The paper will analyze the case to identify the facts of the case, explore the existence of standards of care, duty to meet those care standards and failure do so and the resultant damages. The paper will also evaluate the outcome of the case to determine what possible measures could have been taken to avoid the negative developments that ensued. Analysis of the case Facts The plaintiff was admitted in an emergency unit after suffering from seizures. Upon arrival, the seizures were stopped by medication with a recommendation that the child be scanned for a possibility of brain bleeding. This meant that the child would be moved for the scan before a transfer to another hospital. As a result, the child was transferred to a portable monitor. The hospital records did not however indicate application of the portable monitor. Further, the nurses who attended to the child never recalled application of the portable monitor or any response from a monitor such as monitor alarms. The monitor was later realized to have been faulty. As a result, the child died, without the knowledge of the personnel, from a cardiac arrest that could be expected from a person who had suffered from seizures. Damages of $ 3662221 were reportedly paid (Nso, p. 1). Standard of care The case illustrates the tort of negligence in healthcare. Negligence is defined as the failure by a person to exercise a duty of care owed to another party leading to a legal damage. A proof of negligent case must therefore satisfy some essential elements. The first essential element in a negligent tort is the existence of duty of care owed by one party to another. The party must have failed in exercising the duty of care, through omission or commission, leading to a legal injury. Further, the injury must be capable of remedy and must be related to the defendant’s acts. Based on the facts of the case, there existed a required standard of care by the hospital to the plaintiff. The legal scope of a person’s right to life particularly established a duty of care in the case and could be explored through a medical institution’s expected standard of care in handling patients. Professional standard of care was therefore expected of the hospital personnel to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to save the child’s life. This standard of care meant that procedures in treating the child as well as the facilities used in the process should have met minimum standards expected of a hospital. Such standards of care would include application of efficient equipments such as the monitors that would offer reliable updates of the patient’s condition. Knowledge of the importance of such facilities also induces a standard of care to ensure that such facilities are maintained for efficiency. Similarly, a minimum standard of care is expected from medical personnel based on a patient’s condition. A patient whose status is critical for instance requires constant monitoring to ensure that the patient is free from any danger. This means that the hospital personnel ought to have checked the monitors for continuous updates as well as monitoring the child’s state. The professional scope of a hospital environment together with the child’s critical condition therefore induced a high standard of care on the hospital and its personnel (Nso, p. 1; Daniels and Daniels, p. 148, 149). Duty of care The duty of care of healthcare personnel to a patient is established alongside the contract for provision of the care. As a result, it is only sufficient to prove that there existed a contract between the parties and the fact that healthcare personnel was in charge of the patient. In the case, the child was admitted to the hospital’s emergency room, forming a basis of a contract. Further, the child was under the care of two nurses who transported the child to the scanning unit and back and who were to monitor the child’s condition at the time. These two nurses therefore personally had a duty to meet the expected standard of care over the child’s health (Nso, p. 1; Daniels and Daniels, p. 148, 149). Failure to meet the standard of care and the resultant damages The facts of the case clearly define negligence based on breach of duty to meet standards of care. The hospital nurses for example failed to check and ensure that the portable monitor was in good condition. Further, the child was not closely monitored as his or her critical condition called for. This is because the threat of a cardiac arrest should have put the nurses on alert to monitor the child’s progress. It is failure to meet the standards that led to the death of the child, as the cardiac arrest was not detected in good time. Due to the breach of standard of care, the defendants were sued for damages of $ 3662221 (Nso, p. 1; Daniels and Daniels, p. 148, 149). Outcome of the case Possible course of action for the person in charge The possible course of action for the person in charge of the situation would have been to ensure a high level of competence in handling the patient. Further, and based on the facts of the case, I would seek an informal settlement of the case with the plaintiff. This is because the facts of the case supports negligent tort of which the hospital’s personnel would be pronounced guilty in a judicial process. Further, publicity of the case through a judicial process would induce a negative image on the hospital that could further call for disciplinary measures from regulatory authorities. Reaching an informal settlement with the plaintiff would however avert all this and at the same time ensure responsibility over the case under ethical considerations (Nso, p. 1; Daniels and Daniels, p. 148, 149). Possible organizational actions to avoid the event The event in the case was caused by negligence of the nurses on duty as well as application of faulty apparatus. The event could have been avoided through ensuring that the nursing personnel were well informed of their duties and the possible liabilities due to negligence in their duty. Similarly, maintenance of the hospital’s facilities towards efficiency is another way in which the organization could have avoided the event. This is because application of an efficiently functional monitor would have sounded an alarm to the child’s rescue. An organization can enhance these efficiencies through participation in seminars organized by nursing movements and regulatory bodies (Nso, p. 1; Daniels and Daniels, p. 148, 149). Helpful risk financing technique Risk retention is the most suitable financial technique that could have been helpful in averting the event. This is because the financing methods facilitates faster organizational response to remedy loses. Unlike using third party claims, availability of funds from the organization could facilitate instant maintenance or purchase of a monitor for use as well as compensation (Carroll, 348). Preventing further occurrence of similar events In order to prevent further events of this nature, the organization may formulate policies that ensure efficiency in its personnel and equipments. The policy may focus on vigilance of personnel and emerging trends that can be learnt from seminary forums (Daniels and Daniels, p. 148, 149). Conclusion Healthcare management involves legal issues that induce liability such as that for negligence. The case illustrates negligence of the nurses leading to damages. Administrative approaches such as maintenance of facilities and nurse education could have helped however to avoid the case in which a child died in the hospital due to faulty facility and negligence of the nurses on duty. Works cited Carroll, R. Risk Management Handbook for Health Care Organizations. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 2010. Print. Daniels R. and Daniels, R. Nursing Fundamentals: Caring & Clinical Decision Making. New York, NY: Cengage Learning. 2004. Print. Nso. (2012). Failure to properly monitor child during transport for CT scan following seizure- death- $3662221 verdict. NSO. Web [Accessed on 09 April 2012] Read More