I think, it is an unintentional case. It has to be proved that the nurse was aware from the start about the allergy, ignored it intentionally, and thus, it all led to serious consequences. It can be categorized as negligence during the performance of official duties by the nurse who had to check medical history of an old lady first.
The nurse must be aware of client`s health card and medication contraindications, and question any order that does not seem to be pertinent (Daniels, 2004).
I do not consider it to be a malpractice case. It is possible, but there are not enough facts to say it for sure. The issue is about inattention of a nurse who had to check contraindications immediately (Daniels, 2004), and the pharmacist who should notice the allergy symptoms, or ask the patient about them. At first, it should be proved that the actual cause of the patient’s death is due to the nurse has directly ordered to give her the medicine (or the physician has ordered to prescribe it). The problem could also be faced that the lady knew from the start she was allergic to sulfa medicine, and for some unknown reason, she did not ask about this antibiotic. She could, she had an opportunity but she did not. Any foresight person, who worries about his or her health, would have done it immediately.
I think it is a Respondeat Superior doctrine. But first, the fact should be confirmed that the nurse, doctor, and pharmacist are actually working in that hospital, not as independent contractors whose liability is clearly limited (Harger, 2011).
The doctor acted within his authority and professional skills – that is for sure. The nurse has to be more careful with her patients; the same applies to the pharmacist (Daniels, 2004).
Related Case Studies essays
- Communication Case Study
- IKEA Case Study
- Hurricane Katrina Case Study
- R. v. Proulx Case Study Review
- Case 4.1 Separate Conversations
- Case Study: Forgotten Group Member
- Business Entities
- Application of the Chosen Theory to Case Studies