Carer Corey Lucas Code Of Conduct Of Person Centered Practice

1. Reporting and Responding
Two Professional practice issues that correlate with the horrific case of the abuse and mistreatment of Clarence Hausler includes the Principle regarding Professional behaviour being crossed displayed by the employed Carer. ‘Person- centred practice’ furthermore demonstrated within the way Carer Corey Lucas’ nursing practice and MRCF appalling approach to adverse events and open disclosure in response to such incident. Both professional practice issues are seen to be disobeyed by Hausler’s employed carer as shown within the aggressive measures taken by Corey within the scenario.
2. Relating
There are many concerns the scenario illuminates for practicing nurses. Prior to going out on placement to a healthy facility,

Person- centred practice refers to the ability of a registered nurse (RN) to be able to build trust through the way in which they communicate with a patient and the patient’s family and friends. It is the ability to maintain a set focus on empowering the patient in order for their needs to be met whilst also respecting their rights as a human. Within the scenario the employed Carer Corey Lucas has disobeyed person-centred practice. According to the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, Code of Conduct for Nurses Lucas has disobeyed the Nursing Practice Principle 2.1 A, Lucas has been employed by Health Facility thus it is his responsibility to carry out a duty of care for his patients and abide to any national documents within his role. Lucas has also gone against 1 B, Clarence Hausler is an end- stage dementia patient who has been a long term resident of MRCF, due to such high level of Dementia he is a bed ridden patient suffering from a lack of communication and thus is unable to complete daily routine activities without constant assistance by a carer. Lucas has been employed by MRCF to give Mr Hausler what’s meant to be constant safe and quality care and fails to do so. The principle Adverse events and open disclosure 2.4 A has also been disregarded by the employed carer, the guilty carer did not own up to his aggressive actions when caught on camera and pleaded guilty against the incident. 2.4 B, involved the way in which MRCF failed to act immediately in response to the incident in order to protect the safety of the patient. When the Facility became aware of the horrific incident they decided to instead send a threatening letter to the patients daughter claiming her to have breached numerous acts in relation to privacy and surveillance within an aged care facility and refrained her from continuing to film evidence of the incident. 2.4 D, outlines the way