Principles for Protecting Patient Safety - Essay Example

Beneficence holds that health experts should attempt to benefit the sick. Therefore, in this case, it is presumed that the nurse must prevent any situation which may pose a threat to Judy, for example, not leaving the bathroom door open. Third is the principle of non-maleficence which entails preventing or minimizing harm (Armstrong, 2007). The hospital takes the precaution of checking on Judy after every fifteen minutes. This is aimed at preventing or minimizing harm to Judy.

The nurse was not negligent in unlocking the bathroom door and allowing Judy to shower by herself. This is because she established in her expert view it was fitting to unlock the bathroom door so that Judy could take a shower. In a 1996 case involving Busta and the Columbus Hospital Corporation, The Montana Supreme Court upheld the decision and order given by the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District. The court jury established that the negligence of the Columbus Hospital and that of the patient led to the injuries and consequent death of the patient. In this case, the nurse was deemed not negligent in the events leading to the death of the patient. Similarly, in this case, there is no defiance of the nursing standard of care an acute care hospital nurse, having established as a matter of professional decision it is fitting to unlock the bathroom door to allow Judy to take a shower, not to return and lock the bathroom door solely because a psychiatrist walks into the room to interview Judy. The nurse observed the protocol of checking the patient after fifteen minutes, and that was what was needed by the standard of care (Armstrong, 2007).

It was not below the standard of care that the nurse left the bathroom door unlocked when the psychiatrist came to see Judy. The nurse did not see the psychiatrist vacating Judy’s room. In addition, the psychiatrist did not inform the nurse when leaving the room and left Judy alone. Therefore, there is no way the nurse could go to check on the patient. Also, the nurse observed the standard of care by checking on the patient after fifteen minutes (Armstrong, 2007).

There is a greater duty to this patient from an ethical point of view. This is because nurses have a responsibility of making sure that patients capable of suicidal actions are properly dealt with. In addition, nurses have the duty of effectively monitoring and assessing patients and conveying these examinations to all individuals involved in the health care delivery team. Nurses also have a duty of telling the truth (Armstrong, 2007). Patients in danger deserve frankness as to their exposure and manner of intervention. Health experts with significant opinions regarding suicide should refer the patient elsewhere or reveal them.

Several ethical principles should be taken into account when caring for such a patient. One is the danger to self. Danger to self may incorporate failure to attend to basic requirements, for example, showering, suicidal attempts, or ideation. In numerous fields, information of intention to engage in suicidal activities needs a healthcare practitioner to act instantly to stop the suicide. Two are consent and involuntary treatment. The health expert should decide on whether to hold the patient against his desire (Armstrong, 2007). Holding a patient against his desire may be indispensable to guarantee the instant safety of others or the patient or to permit the execution of treatment and realization of an examination.

The defendants in this case include the hospital, the psychiatrist, and the nurse who opened the bathroom door. The defendants that may be held liable include the nurse who opened the bathroom door and the psychiatrist. It may be argued that the nurse acted in a negligent manner by unlocking the bathroom door and permitting Judy to go to the bathroom by herself and going to check on her after fifteen minutes (Armstrong, 2007). Also, the psychiatrist left the room where Judy was and went to another room to make his report without notifying the nurse to lock the bathroom door. For example, in a 1988 case involving Chin and the St. Barnabas Medical Center, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed a trial court's judgment against a physician only and judged that other hospital workers should also be charged.