In the case study, Mrs. Smith must show the existence of an authorized affiliation between herself and Bright Road Health System. Duty to care obligates the medical facility to protect the rights of others (Pradhan, 2014). As such, the duty to care arose between the patient and the hospital the time the patient was admitted to the facility. In this regard, it was the responsibility of Bright Road Health System to treat Mrs. Smith and prevent her from cross-contamination in the facility. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that duty to care was established in such a scenario.
We will write a custom Proposal on Hospital’s Liability specifically for you
807 certified writers online
Mrs. Smith developed a staph infection after surgery at Bright Road Health System. She contracted the disease after Dr. Paltrow failed to change his surgery gloves before attending to her. Dr. Paltrow used the same gloves as he proceeded from one patient to the following and Mrs. Smith was the last patient to be inspected. Similarly, the nurse on duty during the incident took a long to report the issue of cross-contamination. If she had reported the problem early, the situation could have been addressed at its initial stages (Schroeter, K. (2008). Therefore, the reasons that Mrs. Smith was not only infected with a life-threatening but also experienced a protracted disturbing ordeal is evidence that the duty to care was broken.
In the above incident, there is no doubt that an injury was committed. Because the physician failed to change his gloves before inspecting her, she contracted a staph infection. The infection entered her bloodstream before spreading to one of her lungs. The condition led to empyema. Her pleural space was filled with pus. Following the infection, the patient ended up being admitted to the facility for a month instead of five days. Similarly, her husband and other family member suffered emotional injury after Mrs. Smith contracted the disease and had to spend more days in the hospital. Concerning the above illustrations, it is clear that an injury was caused.
The cause of patient injury resulted from negligence. The standard of practice required in a hospital setup required that Dr. Paltrow change his gloves as he progressed from one patient to another. He is also required to wash his hand after attending to every patient (Youngberg, 2011). However, the physician did not adhere to these principles as required. Similarly, the hospital was required to supervise its employees accordingly. As such, a reminder poster should have been hung in the ward to remind physicians of the need to abide by the required standards. The above illustrations confirm that Mrs. Smith’s injury resulted from negligence.
The concept of Respondeat superior relates to this scenario. The doctrine asserts that establishments should be held responsible in certain circumstances for the illegal acts of their workers. In the case study, the employer did not enforce the required policies and measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Therefore, Bright Road Health System should be held responsible for the offense.
The hospital should file an indemnification against all the staff members involved. The facility should note that malpractice claims are very costly to an organization. Therefore, to serve as a warning and prevent the reoccurrence of such incidences in the future, the hospital should file indemnification against all the parties involved. The above will also enhance the hospital’s reputation upholds transparent affiliation between clients and health care service providers.
Pradhan, E. (2014). Minimizing medical negligence. Nepalese Journal Of Ophthalmology, 6(1).
Schroeter, K. (2008). Duty to Care Versus Duty to Self. Journal Of Trauma Nursing, 15(1), 3-4.
Youngberg, B. (2011). Principles of risk management and patient safety. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.