Nursing Case Study Nursing

Nursing Case study

Introduction

The guiding principle in the provision of health care is to ensure that all patients are provided with high-quality care that guarantees enhanced recovery regardless of their social, financial, cultural and other discriminatory backgrounds. This principle holds nurses and other health care providers accountable for all their actions in the process of care delivery. Health care providers are required to observe coordination of care at all times to ensure that avoidable negative eventualities do not occur (Stukenberg, 2010). Nurses play a crucial role in the delivery of care in and out of health care facilities. The contribution of nurses to coordination of care is vital to professional standard and professionalism

A critical look at the cause of a particular problem helps in fixing the systems associated with the problem to ensure that a similar scenario is not witnessed in the future (Andersen, Fagerhaug & Beltz, 2009). In the medical realm, affective management of the main causes of a particular problem is crucial since medicine is a matter of life and death. The case study reveals that Mr. B arrived at the hospital complaining of severe pain in his left leg and hip area. The nurse on duty carried out routine procedures and checks for vital signs including blood pressure, weight, and heart rate and the patient was discharged to the emergency department waiting area. The medical history of the patient was also noted to guide in the delivery of care (Croteau, 2009). The assessment reveals that the patient does not have a life-threatening condition that may put his life in danger (Andersen, Fagerhaug & Beltz, 2009). Some of the medications that the patient had been using previously were also noted. It is important to note the drugs a patient may be using currently before carrying out the expansive medical procedure to minimize cases of negative drug-drug reactions. Root cause analysis eliminates inadequate patient assessment as the possible cause of complications during care delivery. This justifies the fact that whatever happened to the patient did not happen at

B proves that human causes had something to do with the eventuality of the patient. Firstly, it has been made clear that Mr. B was not responding to diazepam. This made the physician order the nurse to administer Hydromorphone. After fifteen minutes, the physician was not satisfied with the level of sedation the patient had achieved. Thus, he instructed the nurse to administer another 2 mg of hydromorphone IVP and an additional 5 mg of diazepam IVP. To a certain extent, this can be considered as the initial factor that led to Mr. B’s death. The physician disregarded other factors that might have led to the failure of the patient to respond to diazepam. It has been made clear from the case that the physician was only concerned with achieving skeletal muscle relaxation through diazepam. Chances are high that the patient was not responding to diazepam due to his weight and regular use of oxycodone. Had the doctor taken note of this, he could have used other drugs for effective sedation. It is unfortunate that the physician instructed the nurse to increase the sedation dosage of hydromorphone and conducted the hip reduction procedure while the patient was not in any supplemental oxygen system. This action was a total disregard of the effect a high dosage of sedative may have on skeletal muscles in other body organs including the heart and the lungs (Croteau,