Facility Nurse Watches Patient Slowly Die, Refuses CPR

reply to post by Libertygal


Ye Gads! That's puts it in a whole new light - how horrible. In light of that their policy makes sense.

What am I to think now?

Edit to add: Wasn't this a breathing issue, not a heart stoppage? So just inflating the lungs might have been all that was required.

Originally posted by Glassbender777
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Yes she was 87, but I still think CPR should have been preformed. If she doesnt come back after that, then So be it. But just to stand around and watch her die, is a bit much. If this is the way most nurses act, then something should be done. I understand its about quality of life, but No one has that authority except the patient, and sinse they are now dead, I guess her quality of life was made by someone who wasnt even going to live that life. Weird and a bit Evil if you ask me

There was nothing to "bring her back" from. She wasn't dead.

No one stood around and watched her die. They called 911, and stayed with her until they arrived.

She died LATER IN THE HOSPITAL, something no one seems to be understanding, or reading, from the article.

This really needs to have some honest perspective, absent of the media hyperbole and media induced panic that has been allowed to be created.

The only "evil" I see being perpetrated here is the judgement upon other people, so harsh as it is, with so little understanding and so little reading comprehension.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Well thats the thing.

We don't know all the ins and outs...none of us commenting were there, few of us have ever been there.

That said - even as a Nurse with experience of that very thing, when I heard about this I immediately went into "Strip her off her Nursing registration and toss her out on her ear!" Mode...just a natural reaction.

Thinking back on similar...yeah...we might not want to be so quick to cast judgements...

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Ye Gads! That's puts it in a whole new light - how horrible. In light of that their policy makes sense.

What am I to think now?

Edit to add: Wasn't this a breathing issue, not a heart stoppage? So just inflating the lungs might have been all that was required.

edit on 5-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Yes, in BLS, Basic Life Support, it is called rescue breathing, but without more information, we don't know if it was called for.

We hear only the part of the tape after the half hysteric 911 operator starts begging people to do CPR, but not the part of the tape where she asks the questions about Ms. Bayless' condition leading up to that.

Ask yourself why.

Why did they leave that part out?

Does she have a pulse?

How is she breathing?

Those questions, the first steps of BLS, are noteably, and suspiciously absent from the media release of the 911 call. There is a reason.

Then you hear, "She isn't breathing enough. We need to get CPR started."

Well. No. Rescue breaths, maybe, but again, the facility is not licensed to provide medical care. The FACILITY could lose their license.

This is not about one persons' job.

She WAS apparently breathing "enough" as she survived long enough for EMS to arrive, to transport her to the hospital, where she died LATER.

No actions taken at the home would likely have made any difference, and I think people are being unduly harsh and critical of the person calling 911, and of the facility.

There is just not enough information, especially about her medical condition, to make any judgements about the woman calling 911.

I remain suspicious, however, why the first part of the 911 tape was cut out.

I look to the media to answer that.

reply to post by Catalyst317


What I would do if I knew CPR and was certified...I would do it no questions asked, because that is what the Hippocratic Oath demands. This stuff we are seeing of nurses and doctors refusing to treat patients is a direct result of Obamacare and it's agenda, and the leftist radical agenda of the death cult and promotion of doctor assisted suicide because they have a bizarre notion of old people dying off to make room for young people.

reply to post by Libertygal


I don't know that a specific facility gets "licensed" to do CPR but that individuals are licensed. If the staff was not licensed that is one thing, if there were that's another. If the staff nurse is licensed, knew how and when to do it, and was told to do it by an emrgency operator, why didn't she? Then again, is the operator licensed and knows what's happening?

Originally posted by James1982
reply to post by paleorchid13

 

the residents agreed to live there under the rule that staff would not intervene

but this monster woman stopped other residents from helping. if she doesn't want to help, and keep her job, that's fine, i think she is evil but its understandable

but then she refused to allow any other residents to help the woman THAT is what makes her evil

if this is an independent place, and the whole idea is that the staff is not there to take care of residents, then what right do they have to stop other residents from helping? i thought they were independent?

You bring up an excellent point. It was like she was stopping anyone who could have helped. It sounded like there were others in the background. The 911 operator was willing to help someone even who wasn't certified in CPR and was willing to take liability for it. It was absolutely chilling to listen to the 911 call. The woman sounded like she simply didn't care.

I guess I'd rather lose my job than have a death I could have prevented on my conscience.

I don't know what the world is coming to, but it really scares me. Pretty soon I'll be one of those old people in some place where nobody gives a # about me.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Libertygal

 

I don't know that a specific facility gets "licensed" to do CPR but that individuals are licensed. If the staff was not licensed that is one thing, if there were that's another. If the staff nurse is licensed, knew how and when to do it, and was told to do it by an emrgency operator, why didn't she? Then again, is the operator licensed and knows what's happening?

First, and again, she was not employed at this facility as a nurse. She may be a nurse at another job, or left the profession and still have a license. That is not her official employment, according to the facility.

The 911 operator is alleged to have instructed CPR over the phone on several occasions, but as we learned from the Florida case with Trayvon Martin, you are not required to follow instructions from a 911 operator. This has been acknowledged in some articles about the story.

The facility is not, and most certainly, according to California law, not licensed to provide "Medical Care". Again, this was outlined in their contract agreement that both Ms. Bayless and her daughter signed. They were told in the contract, and acknowledged such by signing it, that no medical staff would be present at the facility.

As I said above, if any personnel, regardless of their capacity, were to provide "medical care", which CPR certainly falls under, the facility could lose their license.

One can be certain that this had been pounded into the heads of the staff from the moment of hire, and through endless staff meetings and memos.

Put licensure together with contract agreements, and you have a very binding understanding, both of the staff, as well as the residents in the facility.

I also stated in another post that, as this facility is located immediately adjacent to two other medically staffed facilities, if the daughter, or Ms. Bayless had felt the need, she could have been moved.

Currently, the unit I work in has 31 beds. We are licensed to take 10 ICU patients. If we take 11, we risk the possibility of losing our license. The bed coordinator has called and begged us to admit an 11th ICU patient innumerable times. Should we risk losing our license because the ER is full and they are begging? What good is our unit, if it is closed, losing all 31 beds, because someone begged us to do something we are not licensed by the state to do? Should guilt then, make us admit all 31 beds as ICU?

Some perspective, and less emotion, really needs to be put into this.

reply to post by Catalyst317


such utter garbage....

So how is this different than the BS happening in the middle east.

reply to post by Catalyst317


I don't like this, either, but reality is a harsh mistress.

The thing is, if corporate policy dictated that they couldn't do anything, then I don't blame the nurse for not going further. Yes, it's horrible to just stand there, but, on the other hand, if she had done so against corporate policy, she would have been fired.

Now, I know that sounds cold, but the fact of the matter is that this woman probably is like a lot of us and has kids to feed, a partner out of work or in a crappy job, a disabled or elderly parent, helping relatives, etc.

I know it sounds callous, but would you take food out of your loved ones' mouths to help somebody that's probably not going to last another 5 years, anyway, and even if they do, it'll probably be a slow, painful, lonely, degrading descent?

I'll say honestly that I wouldn't lift a finger and risk my job. Maybe I'm not the best person in the world, and maybe that's a horrible thing to say, but we live in reality, and I'm putting myself in that nurse's shoes.

If we don't like it, then maybe we need to take a look at a society that allows people to be put into those kinds of situations in the first place. Maybe we need to investigate the kind of corporate policy, and the reasons behind it, that won't let trained nurses administer a common life-saving procedure.

After reading this a couple days ago I have to really agree with what the OP says...

From the topic covering this same story posted on 3-3-2013 @ 01:23 PM here...

Originally posted by Binder
The woman's daughter who is a nurse even said she was happy with her mother's care.

The outrage expressed by the readers I believe comes from one of several misconceptions: First that CPR "saves" people, and had it been performed the outcome would have been different. Not true. The average long term survival rate for someone that has CPR administered is about 3%-5%. So CPR saves about 5 in 100 on a good day. With youth drownings being the only exception to that rule. CPR definitely saves lives in healthy drowning victims. The survival rate of 87 year olds with multiple comorbidities is essentially zero. CPR would have made no difference.

The next misconception is that CPR is like on TV. No, No, No... Blood, urine, feces, and other wonderful body fluids fly everywhere, it is painful, it is invasive, it is not dignified, and it's a hell of a bad way to go. If CPR is done correctly you break ribs, and it hurts! When EMTs arrive, and begin advanced support the endotracheal tube shoved down your throat hurts, and makes you gag. The big bore needles we shove in your arm, or groin, or neck hurt. You get a tube in your pee hole, and sometimes a tube through your nose into your stomach. Does that sound like a peaceful, dignified way to go?

The next misconception is that 911 operators are medical personel, they are not. They deal with any, and everything. They are Jack's of all trades, but masters of none. They are also human, and have emotions. Just because a 911 operator pleaded with the nurse does not make those pleas reasonable when the nurse likely had intimate knowledge of the situation, and the operator was isolated in a call room with very little information, or risk to themselves.

No mention was made of the resident's resuscitation status. Frankly it is none of our business. Her family also has the right to privacy, and dignity while grieving the loss of a family matriarch. If the family, and facility have no issue with the nurses actions, she acted appropriately, and personal opinion about it is irrelevant. If you want to be pounded on, stabbed, and tortured in your last few moments in a vain effort to kick your corpse back to life for a 5% chance at a few futile, painful days, or weeks then you can do that on your way out, and waste a couple hundred thousand dollars in medical funding if you want. It seems these people had their heads, and hearts in the right place at the right time. Were she 27 with a good chance of recovery then the story would be completely different. When I'm 87 and ready to go don't you dare bring me back. Death is the result of life. Our immaturity as a species should not rob people of making the transition naturally, and smoothly. Life is precious, and should be defended, and that includes dignity when life ends, as all life does.

I can't say I wouldn't have originally been horrified at just knowing a nurse refused to take care of someone... but after a little more of the story I would agree with the way (I was told that) it was handled. Of course, I was not there but if the daughter was happy with the care and felt that everything was taken care of correctly then what right do we, standing outside of their family unit, have to complain?

If the woman was being beaten by nurses daily or being withheld vital medication... or if the family was just waiting for her to kick off to get that wonderful inheritance then well... that sucks and something needs to be done and an investigation opened into the events.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
She was under STRICT ORDERS to not medically assist these people, they are to CALL 911 and stand by.
THAT IS IT.

She was on duty. She would have lost her job if she provided CPR. I understand a life is more important than her job BUT.. thats how it is

DONT BE MAD WITH HER, BE UPSET WITH HER EMPLOYER!

Don't be mad at her!? Are you kidding!? Anyone with a level of cowardice such as this nurse does NOT need to be a nurse. I hope karma comes back to her tenfold. What a coward!

Originally posted by Hushabye
This was posted the other day....several times

There are several reasons not to perform CPR on an 87 year old woman who was most likely not in good health.

Originally posted by Hushabye
The patient might have had a DNR. The cpr could have been caused damage to the patients' frail body...broken ribs from chest compressions, etc could have punctured the heart or lungs...or both.

87 years old is a good, long run.

edit on 4-3-2013 by Hushabye because: (no reason given)

That's just speculating if CPR could be performed or not. There was no mention of a DNR order just refusal to help.
Chest compressions aren't always used because they can cause more harm. Mouth to mouth might have been all she needed and if that didn't work, on to chest compressions method. But this nurse didn't even want to try to resuscitate her and wasn't even helpful when the operator begged her to pull in strangers off the street. Get anybody I will give instructions how to do it.

This nurse decided to be an ass kisser to her boss instead of a life saver. What a bitch

It seems, according to later reports, the women's family said the women did not want to be resuscitated in the advent it was necessary to restore consciousness. Maybe the facility and nurses were honoring that decision. Once again, the nation and ATS has flown off the handle before getting the whole story.

reply to post by Libertygal


Thank you for the clarity. So what I am hearing from you is that if the facility itself is not licensed as a medical facility, then none of it's employees can administer CPR even if that individual is licensed, because said facility can lose some kind of state licensing.

Ok I got it now.

Now was this woman a nurse? I must be confused about that. I thought she was a nurse. My husband is an NA and part of his training was CPR. Just wondering why an NA has to have that training but not nurses.

reply to post by Catalyst317


Okay, I was siding with the 911 dispatcher for the entire time, until I heard that the dying woman's daughter, who is a nurse, was satisfied with all of this. It then dawned on me that to further prolong a very old woman's life, when clearly it is her time to go, is unfair. Sure, she may have been resuscitated, but for how much longer? She was 87 years old. On the other hand, it makes room for more people to move into the facility, which does equate to a business. And the woman's daughter now gets to receive her inheritance and be free of a sickly old mom. Life is messy and too complicated in the modern world...

Originally posted by mugger
It is unfortunate this lady died. Blame it on the lawyers. There is no way the nurse can know everyone's death wishes to do not resuscitate orders(if they have one).

This was not the case,If lady had a DNR order and the nurse performed CPR and saved her...big lawsuit.

The article states the woman did not have a DNR order.

End of that discussion, unless the journalist got it wrong. Would the nurse have known it if the woman had a DNR or not, I would hope so. If she didn't have that info handy, could she have gotten it?

The news report says that the Home has a policy against CPR. Interesting....

ah and the 911 operator says that EMS would take LIABILITY and it's protocol.

reply to post by corsair00

Okay, I was siding with the 911 dispatcher for the entire time, until I heard that the dying woman's daughter, who is a nurse, was satisfied with all of this. It then dawned on me that to further prolong a very old woman's life, when clearly it is her time to go, is unfair.

Baloney! You drunk the kool aid of the pro suicide death cult of the Progressives. Too bad a 911 operator was more concerned with this woman's life than her own kids.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Thank you for the clarity. So what I am hearing from you is that if the facility itself is not licensed as a medical facility, then none of it's employees can administer CPR even if that individual is licensed, because said facility can lose some kind of state licensing.

Ok I got it now.

Now was this woman a nurse? I must be confused about that. I thought she was a nurse. My husband is an NA and part of his training was CPR. Just wondering why an NA has to have that training but not nurses.

edit on 5-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

In her official capacity at the center, she was hired as a Residence Services Coordinator, or a similar term. In other words, she was someone who planned activities, outtings, visits to doctors, movies, museums, parties, whatever. In her official capacity, she was not a nurse.

She stated on the 911 call that she was a nurse, more I think because of the way the woman was speaking to her, but as I stated above, she may be an LPN or RN in another facility, have quit the field, but still remain liscensed, or even work at this facility in the coordinator job, and in the facility next door as a nurse.

Official capacity is what is important in the context, and her official capacity was not a nurse. Regardless, any person employed by the center, working in any official capacity would have risked the license of the facility.

People continue to speak as if it were selfishness about her job, but further reading revealed the facility license was actually at risk. Provision of medical care by an unlicensed facility is a huge infraction of the law. We are talking not only closure and fines of the facility, but possible jail time. Case in point, the Ala-non Centers recently closed in Georgia for practicing medicine without a license.

And then, you have the potential that any other person that ever passed away at the facility, regardless of who was present, coming back and filing suit claiming they didn't do enough to save my relative, when they tried to save her.

It is a whole can of worms, for the benefit of the facility, that be left unopened. No one is forcing people to live there, and by law, these facts must be made at the time the contract is made. I have yet to hear about any one family coming forward after the death of their loved one, and stating they willfully committed a crime by letting them die.

And again. She didn't die at the facility..the headline in this article is a lie.

She died later, at the hospital.

People were roped into a BS story with little real information, anda lot of angst and anger.

Sadly, they won't read posts like mine because it is more fun to vent at the establishment and rage at the machine. At worst, to admit they allowed someone to pull their chain and get them to have a knee jerk response, which many of these posts are.

I have had it happen to me, it is embarrassing to admit maybe your first statements werecwring, and after finding more information, maybe you change your mind.