LEGAL EAGLE EYE NEWSLETTER
For the Nursing Profession


Request a complimentary copy
of our current newsletter


What is our mission?

What publication formats are available?

How do I start a subscription?

Can I cancel and get a refund?

Does my subscription renew automatically?


 

WHAT IS OUR MISSION?
      Our mission is to reduce nurses' fear of the law and to minimize nurses' exposure to litigation.  Nurse managers need to spot potential legal problems and prevent them before they happen. Managers and clinical nurses need to be familiar with how the law is applied by the courts to specific patient-care situations, so that they can act with confidence.  
    We work toward our goals every month by highlighting the very latest important Federal and state court decisions and new Federal regulations directly affecting nurses in hospitals, long term care facilities and home health agencies. We focus on nursing negligence and nurses' employment and licensing issues.    Our readers are professionals in nursing management, nursing education, clinical nursing, healthcare risk management, legal nurse consulting and law.

WHAT PUBLICATION FORMATS ARE AVAILABLE?
     The Email Edition is our most popular format.  You receive the newsletter as a PDF file attachment in an email sent to you every month.  On any computer or mobile device you simply click the file attachment to open, read, download, and/or print the newsletter. 
    The Email Edition is ideally suited to individuals.  It can also be used by large institutions.  Within an institution, like a hospital or university nursing department, an individual subscriber can forward pertinent articles to colleagues within the institution.  The content cannot be forwarded outside the institution or posted online.   An example might be a nursing director or director of nursing education who shares articles with nurse managers in individual clinical departments.
   The Online Edition is a format suited to educational and healthcare facility libraries with multiple users.  We send a link via email for the current monthly newsletter.  To open the link to the newsletter for that month the subscriber or other user must be using a computer or device whose IP address or range of IP addresses we have authenticated and given permission for online access.
     Print, Email and Online formats contain exactly the same content, eight pages with no advertising.

HOW DO I START A SUBSCRIPTION?

    The links below go to secure online sites maintained for us by Square, Inc. for credit and debit card purchases.  At checkout you will provide your name, payment information and email address.

Email Subscription $120/year

Print / Print + Email Subscription $155/year


     If you prefer, you can download and print an order form to mail or to scan and email to us.  Checks, credit and debit cards, purchase orders accepted, or we will bill you.  Order Form

CAN I CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION AND GET A REFUND?
     Yes. Just ask and the unused portion of your subscription will be refunded.

DOES MY SUBSCRIPTION RENEW AUTOMATICALLY?
     No. Before your annual subscription runs out you will receive a renewal notice by email and regular mail.

 

 

Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter

For the Nursing Profession

PO Box 1342 Sedona AZ 86339

(206) 718-0861 

 

info@nursinglaw.com 

 

Injection Site And Mode Not Charted: Nurse Found Guilty Of Substandard Practice

  Quick Summary: The nurse admitted in court she failed to chart the site and mode of an injection she gave a patient in the emergency room.

  The court accepted expert witness testimony from two nurses, that failing to chart this information is below the standard of care for nursing practice.

  While failing to chart the site and mode of an injection could not have affected how the injection was actually administered, it does tend to indicate that in this instance the nurse did not follow accepted procedure while carrying out her job.

  The nurse was allowed to testify about her customary practice for giving an IM injection. Her testimony after the fact reflected a correct understanding of where and how to give an injection.

  However, two physicians testified the patient’s injury could be consistent with a subcutaneous rather than intramuscular injection, and a third said that a nerve might have been struck by the tip of the needle.

  After weighing the evidence, the jury found the nurse negligent and awarded damages.  COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, 1997.

  According to the court record in a recent case, a nurse gave the patient an injection of Demerol and Vistaril, per a physician’s orders, when the patient was seen in a hospital emergency room complaining of chest pains.

  For several weeks afterward, the patient had hip pain and a lump at the injection site. The patient claimed she was unable to work. A neurologist two months later formed a diagnosis of cutaneous gluteal neuropathy, for which physical therapy and a TENS unit were prescribed. The patient sued the emergency room nurse who gave the injection and her employer the hospital. The jury awarded over $90,000 in damages. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld the verdict.

  The lawsuit alleged the nurse had injured the patient by administering the injection in a substandard manner. However, there was no direct proof in the trial about what actually caused the patient's injury.

  The nurse testified it would have been her routine practice to use a one-and-one-half inch needle, to insert it into the skin over the gluteal muscle at a ninety-degree angle deep into the muscle, then to aspirate the syringe for blood, then to inject the medication.

  Several physicians were also called to testify. Their testimony taken collectively established that the patient's injury could have been caused by a faulty subcutaneous rather than deep muscular injection of the drug Vistaril, or that a nerve could have been hit by the needle tip due to inaccurate location of the injection site.

  The critical testimony, according to the court, came from two nurses who testified as expert witnesses on the standard of care for nursing practice. They said it was below the professional standard of care for a nurse to neglect to chart the site and mode of an injection. This omission convinced the court the nurse must not have administered the injection properly. Pellerin vs. Nurses, 969 So. 2d 590 (La. App., 1997).

More references from nursinglaw.com

http://www.nursinglaw.com/iminject.htm

 

http://www.nursinglaw.com/IM-injection-nurse-testimony.pdf

 

http://www.nursinglaw.com/IM-injections-nursing-standard.htm