Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : AMERICAN BIOMED, Minimally Invasive Technology (ABMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: samcat9 who wrote (1435)	7/10/1998 9:02:00 PM
From: greg Benfield	Respond to of 2887

Nice Story.....I was really getting into it. If this was the ABMI battle then make sure you say that the baby powder calvary does not come as quick as we hope..and slowly our men are picked off one by one. Luckily we are in southeast Asia instead of Europe...we could not buy any supplies there.

To: samcat9 who wrote (1435)	7/11/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Jeffrey L. Henken	Respond to of 2887

Latex allergy and nursing negligence after use of a latex Foley catheter: npg.com >Nursing negligence is a troublesome issue. When proven it has caused injury to a patient, awards can and are awarded to plaintiffs. In this case, though the nurse was clearly negligent. Her specific actions were not the cause of the patient's alleged losses, a child born with cerebral palsy. The patient was admitted in labor for her first child. As part of the admission process, it was determined that this patient was hypertensive and allergic to latex. This was clearly noted in the chart. An epidural anesthesia was initiated to deal with the pain believed to be elevating the patient's blood pressure. The nurse taking care of the patient, decided a Foley Catheter was indicated. A common side effect of epidural anesthesia is the loss of the sensation of needing to void. Accordingly, the nurse then inserted the latex rubber Foley catheter. Soon after, though she could not feel the catheter, the patient complained allergic symptoms. Specifically itching and shortness of breath. Soon after this fetal distress was noted and an immediate forceps delivery initiated. Both the mother and child would survive the delivery. The child however, was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy (CP). Cerebral Palsy can be caused by a number of different factors. One factor pertinent to this case is anoxia (or lack of oxygen to the brain) prior to or after birth. For the nurse's actions to be proved causative, the symptoms would need to be directly related to the child developing CP. Not breathing on it's own, the child would spend time following birth under intensive care. The patient then sued the nurse, hospital and physicians alleging that the nurse's negligence caused the child's CP Diagnosis. In court, it was found that the nurse inserting the Foley was clearly negligent. The plaintiff's attorney was not able to convince the jury that her actions were related to the child developing CP. Expert testimony on both sides would find: 1. The mother's shortness of breath and fetal distress noted after Foley insertion may have caused fetal anoxia. 2. The child's anoxic episode by itself was probably not responsible for the child's subsequent diagnosis. 3. The nurse was clearly negligent for not noting the latex allergy. The allergic documentation, although she was not aware of it, was readily available in the chart. The nurse would testify to this fact as a matter of record. This case illustrates the importance of patient allergy documentation. This information is usually clearly demonstrated on both the front of patient charts and in Medication Administration Records. It would be helpful also for this information to be passed on in report from nurse to nurse, shift to shift. After a full trial and appeal, the nurse was not held responsible in this case. Had the nurse been aware of the patient's allergy in the first place, a trial could have been avoided. If she had not inserted the Foley, it never would have been an issue. Patients and lawyers may latch on to any detail or event available (such as the Foley insertion) to base a suit on. Whether related or not, once a suit is initiated, legal counsel is required and boards of nursing may become involved. It's simple and even common sense minor details that frequently lead to lawsuits. Staff nurses on units today are being asked to provide highly skilled care to acutely ill patients. Consumer expectations are high, as are those of fellow nursing staff and physicians. When care is not rendered, or a patient suspects it is not up to standards, legal action can be initiated. When lawsuits can be brought, literally at the drop of a hat, can you afford not to have malpractice insurance? If you are relying on insurance from your employer, do you know what questions to ask to make sure you are protected? Are you confident your interests and livelihood will be made a priority by the employer's legal counsel? Nurses Protection Group offers a free special report on this topic. Feel free to request it.< The use of 100% silicone catheters could also prevent these kinds of situations. Regards, Jeff