Impact of Social Media on Mental Health
Nancy Moore, a registered nurse, is assisting Dr. Brown while he performs a minor surgical procedure. Dr. Brown is known to have a quick temper, and he becomes very angry if a surgical procedure is delayed for any reason. As Nancy is handing a needle with suture thread to Dr. Brown, she feels a slight prick in her sterile gloves. She tells Dr. Brown about this and explains that she will have to be excused from the procedure for a few minutes while she changes gloves. He becomes angry and tells her to “forget about it and help me finish.”
- Will it be harmful to anyone if Nancy wears the gloves during the rest of the procedure, as it was just a slight prick and the patient’s wound does not appear to be infected?
- Who is at fault if the patient does develop an infection?
- What recourse does Nancy have if she develops a bloodborne pathogen infection, such as hepatitis from the small hole in her gloves?
- Is this an ethical or a legal issue or both?
- Are there any federal regulations that might help Nancy in the event of an injury or infection? If so, what are they?
It is generally not recommended for healthcare professionals to continue working with gloves that have been compromised, even if it is a slight prick. The sterile gloves are intended to maintain aseptic conditions during the surgical procedure, and any breach in their integrity can potentially introduce microorganisms into the wound, increasing the risk of infection. Therefore, it would be advisable for Nancy to change her gloves before continuing with the procedure. If the patient develops an infection, it would be challenging to pinpoint the exact cause or assign fault solely based on the information provided. In surgical settings, multiple factors contribute to the risk of infection, including the sterility of instruments, adherence to proper aseptic techniques, and the overall condition of the patient’s immune system. While Nancy’s compromised gloves may present a potential risk, the responsibility for infection prevention ultimately falls on the entire surgical team.
If Nancy develops a bloodborne pathogen infection such as hepatitis from the small hole in her gloves, she may have recourse through workers’ compensation or other relevant employee protection programs. These programs are designed to provide medical treatment, compensation, and support to employees who sustain work-related injuries or illnesses. Nancy should consult her workplace policies and procedures, as well as local regulations, to understand the available recourse in such situations. This situation can be viewed from both an ethical and a legal perspective. Ethically, it raises concerns about patient safety and the duty of healthcare professionals to provide the highest standard of care. Dr. Brown’s anger and insistence on continuing with compromised gloves may compromise patient safety and breach ethical principles. Legally, the situation could potentially involve negligence or malpractice if it can be proven that the patient’s subsequent infection was directly caused by the compromised gloves and the failure to address the issue promptly.
