Why did staff refuse to give woman CPR?

I'm opting to go towards the light, please do not disturb me...

This place is no shoddy end-of-the-line nursing home.
And it is not cheap for the residents. (not medicare either)

Check it out
[link to www.seniorhomes.com]

On their report of this issue, HLN stated that this woman did not have a DNR. What say you in light of this?

I would say it was negligent homicide to refuse CPR. Licence suspended.

The staff are afraid of litigation. If they bring her back and break a rib, the family will sue.

Shaddup jackasses. Negligent homicide...how stupid. It's called nature.

THIS ^

I think a lot of people are missing a critical point - regardless of the 'type' of facility this is, it has a clear policy that nurses employed by the facility CANNOT give CPR to patients/residents and in the event emergency medical care is needed they must call 911 and remain with the patient but CANNOT give CPR.

This is a policy that, I am certain, is explained in detail to family members prior to residents moving in.

The daughter of the woman was interviewed following the incident, and she indicated that she had no problem with the way the facility/nurse handled the situation.

So, regardless of a DNR, the nurse did her job - as advertised.

Not EVERYONE desires a life prolonged by artificial means - some people respect the fact that we all die eventually and want a little bit of dignity when the time comes. The woman was in her 80's if I recall - CPR would have broken ribs, the length of time she was deprived of oxygen could have resulted in brain damage and she may have spent the remaining months of her life in pain, in bed and possibly a vegetable. This matter, this end of life care and decision making, was NOT the business of the dumb dispatcher who believed she knew better than the care facility and the woman's family.

So CPR should never be performed on anyone in your view?

How about other emergency procedures? Let nature take it's course? Or is there an age cut-off for it, in your view? What is this age cut-off where we stop offering emergency medical aid? (Not life extending stuff - we are talking EMERGENCY medical aid here)

me2

Are you REALLY prepared to take on the life energy of someone who is meant to die ? That is what happened to me when i did CPR on my father in law -- who should have been a DNR, but wasn't. He died 10 days later, except that he didn't

I have carried his life energy inside of me ever since. (He was not a nice man).

It is true that this country is down the tubes, very especially regarding our elders. I take care of a 'very senior' senior who is a family member. I see the attitude of even doctors with elders, even those doctors who specialize in elder medical care. It's like the attitude is that 'well, this person has lived long enough and therefore they do not, in my estimation, deserve to live any longer or receive the same care as others, and certainly not in any dignified manner.'

And I disagree with all of the above. It's the latest "playing God trickling down effect".

As to whether the worker should have performed CPR - WELL HELL YES!

The no CPR statements is odd. There are good samaritan laws protecting people from being sued for rendering help in an emergency situation. Perhaps as an employed nurse their situation is different. It is certainly a strange policy.

WHat if they were taking care of young kids? Would a similar rule be in place? Why bother having a nurse if she is not allowed to provide care like that? Like I said, the law protects people to an extent. Maybe medical personal are not included in that but that should not matter in an emergency situation.

If the daughter is ok with it then I guess the media should let it go but the facility needs to work out a better plan and California needs to protect their emergency medical and good samaritan laws if they are so afraid of being sued. What is the point of learning CPR if, as a trained specialist, you are not allowed to perform for fear of being sued for a variety of stupid reasons.

Obama's death panel claim it's first victim ?

I have tried saying repeatedly this issue has nothing to do with DNR, and that is not what this issue is about, lol, I give up though, too many people not reading it all and still think that is the issue. oh well.

It does have to do with the type of facility though in agreement to your point. I posted the laws on SNFs earlier in the thread, which states their federal and state legal obligations....which contradict their policies. This facility, upon admittance, patients must sign a contract that they acknowledge they will not be rescuitated if they are there, and they will call 911 or someone else if medical care is needed. So the facility, thinks because of this signed contract, and because they called 911 they get to wash their hands of this. But because they are an SNF and the laws surrounding SNFs, regardless of what their contracts and policies state, they are in the wrong. That is why they are reviewing their policies now. They are going to get sued for sure.

Now the grey area that I think is the most interesting issue here ----

Is did this nurse do what she was supposed to do?

She was compliant with her employers policies(though they are incorrect), yes, so this should absolve her of wrong doing right?

But lets ask these two questions:

1) When she was asked by the 911 to do cpr and refusing, did she open herself up to some type of liability issue?

2) As a provider,she gave an oath. Does this create a a liability issue?

For the nurse only, this is a sticky situation. I dont think the answer to that is so clear cut and dry, you could defend in either direction.

For the facility, shame on them.

The nurse was only there to give medicine ?

Maybe these ambulance companies would be well served to have their little sleeping posts within 2-3 min of these places or even at them...

I would really like to know why they call this person a nurse. Also why their policy was to call 911.

The people who go to this facility were apparently sold image over substance. Especially when her supervisor turns out to be a 911 operator who she refuses to obey.

The blind leading the blind.

You are certain? Why are you certain? Very probably there are a hundred pages of forms and small print that the resident is handed and told to "sign here".

Yeah, yeah, everyone should always read every bit of small print, but do they? Do you?

They call her a nurse because she is, presumably, a certified nurse in her state.

The people who go to this facility know what they are getting into - have you ever seen the amount of paperwork that goes into admitting a person to a care facility? Her family knew where she was living and the regulations of the facility. I can guarantee the place has a signed document (or a dozen) attesting to the family's knowledge of and acceptance of their policies.

And the woman's SUPERVISOR is her supervisor. She explained to the 911 operator that she COULD NOT give CPR as a condition of her employment. She could have been fired and possibly lost her nursing license (IDK the terms of her contract) for failing to comply. Particularly if she was going against the wishes of the family and the policy of the facility in which she works.

What part about this is so hard to understand? Why is the idea of a natural death so inconceivable to you? This nurse did NOTHING wrong. She did her job.

Duh .... now I see. Independent contractor.

LOL well that takes the cake.

I guarantee that if I were turning a family member over to the care of virtual strangers, I would be reading the details of the contract.

Did you not read the story? The daughter of the woman who died was interviewed and completely fine with the way the situation was handled. She certainly didn't sound like a woman who was blindsided by a care facility's negligence.

The ONLY people who have an issue with this are people who are no way involved with the family or their right to make their own health care/end of life decisions.

<<<NBC News reports today that a nurse at Glenwood Gardens, a senior living facility in Bakersfield, California, refused to perform CPR on an elderly woman earlier this week. ****Just to set the record straight, the patient did not have a do-not-resuscitate order.****>>>

[link to www.examiner.com]

THERE WAS NO DNR

You did not catch your schizophrenia for performing CPR on your father in law. You are delusional and should seek treatment.

I wonder if other workplaces have policies like this in place?

Like restaurants, department stores, etc. ie - no staff is permitted to perform CPR on a customer?

A long time ago, when working at a chain restaurant, we had a group training session where we were asked what we would do if we saw an elderly customer slip and fall. Most immediately said they would help her up. We were instructed, "NO - If you notice someone fall, immediately look the other way and head into the kitchen. You saw nothing."

I wonder if the woman was bleeding out, if the "nurse" is instructed also to just watch...

it dosnt matter the policy of the facilty its called the duty to act as a medcial professional and she failed that. the mother did not have a DNR order.. the facilty does not make the decision whether or not to with hold cpr. that is up to the individual or power of attorney. CPR is and can only be with held with the reasons i gave before anything other or more different then that is called gross negligence. the nurse can and will lose her license. and if not its a damn shame