Life Review Analysis Reflection Paper
Please use the link provided at https://www.bon.texas.gov/rr_current/217-19.asp to review. Apply the information to this case study- \”Nurse Sam is charting at the nurse’s station where there are co-workers, physicians and a unit secretary gathered. Sam and the nurse manager have not been seeing eye to eye lately (verbal altercations both in the halls and in the cafeteria recently). The nurse manager approaches Sam and loudly states, “I am glad you are here. Just to let you know, the Incident Based Peer Review Committee is meeting tomorrow, and we are investigating your recent questionable behavior. I know you have made many recent medication errors and safety violations noted by the Patient Safety Committee. I also heard you are dating that patient who was in Room 256B last month. I thought you would want to know this was happening, you could be in big trouble and probably fired. I don’t have anything official to give you, but you better find a lawyer, although I doubt you can with this short notice. Life Review Analysis Reflection Paper. ” How did this nurse manager violate the IBPR? Refer to the Rule listed below and discuss in the text box. Rule 219.19 a (2) Bad Faith- knowingly or recklessly acting without the supported of reasonable or legal basis, misrepresenting the facts surrounding the facts under review, acting out of malice or personal animosity towards the nurse, acting from a conflict of interest, or knowingly or recklessly denying due process. How did this nurse manager violate the IBPR based on this rule? Please write four (4) professionally written sentences with examples from the Rule to support your thoughts for full credit.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM -FREE PAPER NOW
A review of the case reveals that the nurse manager acted in bad faith. This is a violation of rule 219.19 as presented by the Texas Board of Nursing. In fact, the nurse manager violated IBPR based on this rule. Firstly, the nurse manager acted recklessly by deliberately and unjustifiably discussing an ongoing disciplinary case with Sam in the presence of a patient and colleagues while consciously disregarding the risks associated with the action. This presents nurse Sam as having behaved unprofessionally thereby reducing her esteem among patients and colleagues. In addition, the content of the conversation would make the audience assume that the case results have been determined and that nurse Sam acted immorally and unethically with a patient. Secondly, the nurse manager did not have a reasonable or legal basis for making the claims made. The nurse manager should only be responsible for informing nurse Sam about the impending meeting with the Incident Based Peer Review Committee but should not assume that she would be found guilty of the accusations and employment terminated. She assumed that nurse Sam would be found guilty and predicted that her employment would be terminated following the committee meeting (Casetext, 2020). Thirdly, the nurse manager misrepresented the facts surrounding the facts under review. It is true that nurse Sam has been called before the committee to answer to allegations labeled against her. However, these are allegations at this point and have not been confirmed as facts. Fourthly, the nurse manager acted out of malice and personal animosity towards nurse Sam. The two had conflicted previously and had a verbal altercation in the presence of other. The nurse manager appears to have used this opportunity to embarrass nurse Sam before her colleagues and patients, and discredit her thereby getting some payback for the previous conflict. Finally, the nurse manager is knowingly and recklessly denying nurse Sam due process by informing her about the impending meeting with the committee when there is very little time to review the case details and seek legal representation. There is a very short notice and nurse Sam is likely to attend the committee meeting without adequate preparation or even legal representation (Casetext, 2020). Based on the rule, there are five actions that the nurse manager should have undertaken to ensure compliance with the rule. Life Review Analysis Reflection Paper. Firstly, the nurse manager should have informed nurse Sam about the impending committee meeting in a private forum. Secondly, the case details should not be embellished to embarrass nurse Sam and act out on personal animosity. Thirdly, the nurse manager should have a mediate during the communication to help with reducing the tension between the two and ensuring that the nurse manager does not act from a conflict of interest or out of personal animosity. Finally, the communication should have been conducted early on to allow nurse Sam review the case details and seek legal representation thereby allowing for due process (Wiseman, 2017).
Casetext (2020). 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 217.20. https://casetext.com/regulation/texas-administrative-code/title-22-examining-boards/part-11-texas-board-of-nursing/chapter-217-licensure-peer-assistance-and-practice/section-21720-safe-harbor-nursing-peer-review-and-whistleblower-protections
Wiseman, J. (2017). Reasonable, but Wrong: Reckless Disregard and Deliberate Ignorance in the False Claims Act after “Hixson”. Columbia Law Review, 117(2), 435-471. https://doi.org/10.2307/44159465 . Life Review Analysis Reflection Paper.