close

francisbacon7

close

derekting2u

通常都是两个一起告，不过最后大多数都是医院的insurance 赔偿。你妹妹最大的问题不是赔偿金，而是她很难在那行业呆下，还有要受到良心的责备。

francisbacon7

Failure to use equipment in a responsible manner.

Nurses must know the safety features, capabilities, and limitations of any equipment they use, as well as its hazards. Nurses must follow the manufacturers' usage recommendations and refrain from modifying the equipment. The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 requires that all medical device-related adverse incidents that result in death or serious illness or injury be reported to the manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration within 10 working days. 2

In Chin v. St. Barnabas Medical Center (1988), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed a trial court's judgment against a physician alone and said that other hospital personnel should also be held liable. 12 The case involved the death of a 45-year-old woman, Ms. Chin, from a massive air embolism during a diagnostic hysteroscopy. The woman's estate had brought a medical malpractice suit against all the providers who had possibly played a role in the events leading to her death: the physician who performed the procedure, three operating room nurses (one scrub nurse and two circulating nurses), the hospital, and the manufacturer of the hysteroscope, an optical device with a pump used in examining the uterus. During the procedure, fluid is pumped continuously into the uterus to enhance the view of its interior. The device requires the connection of four tubes: an irrigation tube through which fluid flows into the uterus, a suction tube that draws fluid out of the uterus, a tube that connects a source of compressed nitrogen to the pump, and an exhaust tube. Because one of the tubes was connected to the hysteroscope incorrectly, nitrogen was pumped into the patient's uterus, causing a fatal air embolism in the coronary arteries.

At trial, all parties accepted the theory that the exhaust hose was the source of the gas that killed Ms. Chin; who was at fault for attaching the hysteroscope incorrectly was disputed. Evidence presented at trial revealed that the two nurses assigned to the surgical procedure had neither hospital training nor experience in the hysteroscope's use. Evidence also showed that the supervising nurse who made the assignments was unaware of the nurses' lack of experience. No expert opinion on the standard of care was presented at trial.

At the end of the trial, the judge instructed jury members to use their "common knowledge" to decide if the nurses deviated from their duty in caring for Ms. Chin. (The common-knowledge standard applies when the facts of a case are such that a layperson's common knowledge and experience would enable a juror to conclude, without hearing expert testimony, that a duty of care has been breached.) The judge also informed the jury that because Ms. Chin was unconscious at the time of the procedure, she was blameless in her own death and at least one of the defendants clearly was at fault-shifting the entire burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendants (that is, each defendant had to prove that he or she was not at fault).

The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,000,000 in damages and found the defendants liable in the following proportions: the physician, 20%; the experienced circulating nurse, 25%; the inexperienced circulating nurse, 20%; and the hospital, 35%. The scrub nurse and the manufacturer were cleared of all liability.

Immediately after the verdict, the trial judge ruled in favor of the hospital's motion that questioned the validity of applying the common-knowledge standard in this case; the judge reapportioned liability solely to the physician. In granting the hospital's motion, the judge said the application of the common-knowledge standard had been an error. But in the physician's appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and essentially restored the original jury verdict, saying that each defendant had not entirely established the lack of fault in Ms. Chin's death and that the trial court had not erred in applying the common-knowledge standard.

francisbacon7

不使用设备，以负责任的态度。

护士必须知道的安全功能，能力，和他们使用的任何设备的限制，以及其危害。护士必须遵循制造商的使用建议不要修改设备。 1990年的安全医疗器械法“规定，所有医疗器械相关不良事件导致死亡或严重的疾病或伤害报告的制造商和美国食品和药物管理局在10个工作日内。 2

钦诉圣巴拿巴医学中心（1988），新泽西州高等法院，上诉庭，推翻审判法院的判决只对医生说，其他医院工作人员也应被追究法律责任。 12宗个案涉及一个45岁的女人，从一个巨大的空气栓塞期间，宫腔镜诊断，钱女士的死亡。女人的遗产已经带来医疗医疗事故诉讼反对谁曾可能发挥的作用导致她的死亡的事件中的所有供应商：在医生执行程序，3操作室护士（1擦洗护士和两个循环护士），医院，宫腔镜，用于检查子宫用泵的光学元件的制造商。在实验过程中，连续泵送流体进入子宫，以增强其内部的视图。这种装置需要连接的四根管，灌溉管，流体通过该流入子宫，将流体吸入的吸入管的子宫中，连接到泵的压缩氮气源的管，和排气管。因为管被连接到错误的宫腔镜，氮气泵入患者的子宫，在冠状动脉中造成致命的空气栓塞。

在审判中，所有各方都接受的理论，排气管的气源，杀害钱女士是谁的错，错误地将宫腔镜争议。审理时出示的证据显示，两名护士分配到外科手术的医院既无训练，也没有经验，在宫腔镜的使用。证据还表明，监督护士谁的分配是不知道护士的缺乏经验。没有专家意见的护理标准，提出了审判。

在试验结束时，法官指示陪审团成员使用他们的“常识”来决定背离自己的职责，如果护士照顾钱女士。 （共同知识标准适用于案件的事实等，外行的共同的知识和经验将让一个陪审员，以得出结论，没有听取专家的证词，该注意义务已被违反时。）法官还告知陪审团因为钱女士当时的程序是无意识的，她完全在她自己的死亡，至少其中一名被告显然是有过错的整个举证责任从原告转移给被告（即每个被告必须证明他或她是不是故障）。

陪审团判给原告200万美元赔偿金，发现被告承担责任的比例如下：医生，20％，经验丰富的当班护士，25％;当班护士的经验，20％;和医院，35％。刷手护士和制造商被清除的所有责任。

紧随宣判后，主审法官裁定有利于医院的议案的有效性提出质疑，在这种情况下，应用的共同知识标准;的法官reapportioned，仅给医生责任。在给予医院的议案，法官说的共同知识的标准的应用是一个错误。但医生的上诉，上诉法院逆转初审法院的决定，并基本上恢复了原来的陪审团判决，说，每个被告没有完全建立在钦女士的死亡缺乏故障和审判法庭已不是错在应用常见的知识标准。

francisbacon7

francisbacon7 发表于 8-7-2013 03:30 PM
不使用设备，以负责任的态度。

护士必须知道的安全功能，能力，和他们使用的任何设备的限制，以及其危害 ...

美国的case,看了有点怕