DB responses
BabyTazz21
DBresponses1.docx1.
8:35pmApr 16 at 8:35pm
The chain of events that led to the death of Robin and Allison Lowe, were the administrating of TPN solution through intravenous tubing, administering a prescribed solution without prescription without an written order, failure to use the two-nurse verification system of the written order(although in Robin case there wasn't one), assuming the solution was appropriate for Robin, using universal tubing, and starting the solution she thought was TPN without the nutritionist approval first.
The pending disaster could've been stopped by the nurse upon receiving what she believed was TPN. She should've questioned why there wasn't an written order for the TPN present. She could have called the nutritionist or Robin's providers. The nurse could have raised questions of why the solution she received didn't have adequate or any tubing as well as, a barcode.
I believe the direction of our current processes could help prevent medical errors. EHRs have the ability to input and track prescription orders, approving authorities and all parties responsible in verifying the prescription as well as, administering the prescribed medication. Reducing the amount of departments holding prescriptions could also reduce errors.
2.
YesterdayApr 15 at 12:13pm
What chain of events and mistakes led to the Death of Robin and Allison Lowe, Robin's baby?
The chain of events that lead to Robin’s and Allison’s death stem from the tubing misconnection. The events that lead up to the nurse placing an enteral feed into Robin’s PICC are very questionable. The nurse without a written order from a physician, and a second check gave her this bag of enteral nutrition. There was even a message on the bag that stated not for IV. The tubing for bags did not match the PICC. Yet the nurse found a way to rig it to fit. Once the hospital discovered the mistake that was made, their response was to send her to another hospital. This to me seem like another failure that led to their death.
At what point in the chain could the pending disaster have been stopped?
The hospital must stop cases like this before they can become cases at all. I mean to say, the access to the medicine without a second check should be near impossible. I know that it is not possible to prevent every misreading, mix-up, or mislabeling. This disaster could have been stopped at the point where the nurse overrides the hospital policy.
What processes could be put in place to prevent such an event from occurring?
I am a strong advocate for omnicell computer systems. I know that not all hospitals can afford these systems of have the staff capable of operating and maintaining these machines. The added unbiased machine helps keeps nurses and physicians honest with time stamps, electronic orders, and ID verifications.
3.
WednesdayApr 14 at 6:33am
The chain of mistakes that led to the death of Robin and Allison Lowe included Robing Receiving enteral feeds through her PICC line. Basically, a series of assumptions and lack of following hospital policy led to the death of Robin and her daughter. Initially, there were no orders written by the physician for feeding, and the nurse made an assumption based on the plan of care rather than the actual physician's orders. The nurse further did not follow hospital policy and have a second nurse check orders and bag or wait for the nutritionist before starting the bag, and the nurse didn't scan the bar code on the medication. Unfortunately, not following protocols and taking the steps necessary led to the death of Robin and her daughter. At any point during the process, checking orders, having an additional nurse check order, waiting on a nutritionist could have prevented the mistake. Additionally, a seasoned or trained nurse would know the difference between TPN and PPN vs. enteral feedings. This also demonstrates that the nursing staff did not have adequate training.
Processes that could prevent mistakes such as this include nursing education. Changing enteral tube feeds, TPN, and PPN tubing so that they are only compatible with the mode of delivery. More harsh punishments when nursing staff, physicians, and other health care staff ignore policies. In my opinion, this nurse should have lost her license completely and should never have worked in the medical setting or as a nurse again. Not because of the mistake, but not following standard protocols.
4.
6:10pmApr 16 at 6:10pm
In-group favoritism is when we have positive biases towards the people in our group, and negative biases towards people from another group (Robbins & Judge, 2018). According to Charness & Chen (2020), people have a tendency to trust and cooperate more with in-group members than out-group members because groups comprise of a network for reputation based indirect reciprocity, and this is a strategy to maintain a positive reputation in the group, obtain some sort of indirect benefits from in-group members, and avoid the cost of being disliked by anyone in the group. This happens a lot in political circles where people tend to favor those who have the same beliefs as they do, and they benefit from endorsements, but also they fear the wrath that comes with not agreeing with their in-group members. People have grown to expect greater cooperation from in-group members and to be more concerned about their reputation among in-group, than out-group, members (Charness & Chen (2020). In today’s time people are willing to make wrong choices even when they know their choices are wrong, they do this because it serves the greater good of their in-group, and they are more concerned with their reputation among in-group than out-group. According to Robbins & Judge (2018), when there are in-groups and out-groups there is usually hostility. Over the past few months we have seen the animosity between Democrats and Republicans intensifying because each group believes that they are correct compared to the other group.
References:
Charness, G., & Chen, Y. (2020). Social Identity, Group Behavior, and Teams. Annual Review of Economics, 12(1), 691–713. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-091619-032800
Robbins, S. P. (2018). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: Pearson.
5.
12:26pmApr 16 at 12:26pm
Greetings,
For this weeks discussion I would like to speak on the topic of forming 'teams' in the workplace (CH.10). Over the past decade teams in the workplace have been created and often used in many different settings and organizations. Why are they important and effective? "A team of people happily committed to the project and to one another will outperform a brilliant individual every time,” writes Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard. Teams can sometimes achieve feats an individual could never accomplish.2 Teams are more flexible and responsive to changing events than traditional departments. As we all know the pandemic has effected us in many ways, mostly impacting our workplace. I found a article that explains how teams were able to work together still in the workplace even through the pandemic but it also caused many inefficiency’s. Executives are starting to envision post-COVID collaboration in organizational cultures reshaped by remote work. Virtual meetings and conferences have been keeping teams together during this pandemic. Many workers were having trouble because all the meetings were overwhelming and they felt "out of the loop" if you missed a few minutes. Throughout the research, by labeling the types of interactions a team needs and tracking the quality of scheduled time, managers can systematically improve collaboration. Executive's have to figure out what's effective for their team and stick with it, in order to get projects done.
How teams work: Lessons from the pandemic. (2021, April 16). Retrieved April 16, 2021, from https://www.forbesindia.com/article/harvard-business-school/how-teams-work-lessons-from-the-pandemic/67467/1 (Links to an external site.)
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2021). Essentials of organizational behavior. In Essentials of organizational behavior (pp. 154-160). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
6.
YesterdayApr 15 at 11:50pm
Remote Groups
Effectively working in a group can be very rewarding but can also be difficult. Effectively working in a group remotely can present obstacles that employees must figure out. Remote leadership and employees must learn how to engage, read virtual body language, be on camera, and invest in the necessary remote technology; the list of necessary arrangements can go on and on.
Remote professional relationships can be difficult. Fitting in while also in isolation can be hard. Great ideas and professional relationships can begin around the water cooler. Remote group leadership is also an important special skill.
As we see in the attached article, successful virtual collaboration requires strategy, plans, and initiative! Researchers have also labeled virtual meeting overuse as zoom fatigue and have found psychological reasons behind it.
Sources
Lee, J. (2020, November 17). A Neuropsychological Exploration of Zoom Fatigue. Psychiatric Times. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychological-exploration-zoom-fatigue.
Sojli, E., Soattin, L., Patel, S., Lo, C., Kirshner, S. N., Oehmke, T. B., … Cardinal, B. J. (2021). Forging remote relationships. Science, 372(6537), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi4726
