Well I hope the company gets taken to court so there is a legal precedent set for
it and other facilities.

You guys have helped me on the option of getting long-term care insurance. I'm now DUBIOUS. Does anybody think this is possibly going to get better ... as a wave of Baby Boomers heads for these establishments over the next two decades???

I'm thinking the North American Indians got it about right.
When it's time to go ... walk off into the snow.

Pete2

my dad was in a nursing home. they are not allowed to restrain either.

the response was to lower the beds and put mattresses on either side of the beds so when the patients fell out they they didn't really fall because they were already on the floor.

just about every resident had the string to an alert device clipped to their clothing that would buzz if they moved out of their chair or bed. not technically a restraint I guess.

Up till now, the company has been defending the caller for following company policy. But I just read a new statement by the company saying that "This incident resulted from a complete misunderstanding of our practice with regards to emergency medical care for our residents."

I mention this new statement because I suppose it's reassuring if it means that this surprising situation is not solely a reflection of an overly extreme company policy. (Of course, corporate could also be throwing the caller under the bus by re-interpreting their policy after the fact, but it's hard to tell without more info.)

And the woman's family has said they knew the policy and have accepted what happened and not seeking any civil or criminal legal action. Of course, the attention this sad event has gotten can't be easy on them.

Should a first responder be making decisions like this on the scene of an emergency situation? -" How old are you? 87! That great. You've probably lived long enough...sorry, no CPR today!"

Where do you start drawing the line in an emergency situation? What about a 76 year old in "pretty good health"? or a 65 year old? What about a 45 year old in poor health? et cetera.....

Buzz? Buzz?! You call that a "buzz"???!!! More like a 140dB siren. Deafening. It would startle all the others, who would then try to get up out of their own wheelchairs to escape, setting off their individual sirens too. Pure hell, I tell you!

I stopped on page 1, and haven't seen updates, but here's my take.

I worked as an EMT in CA for 7 years. 3 of those were with a company that did mainly transfers between hospitals, nursing facilities and associated health care places (PT, dialysis, etc).

First, if this lady was a nurse, in any capacity, then she's probably going to lose her license. She does have a legal duty to act, which means perform CPR, unless the patient had a DNR. Which in CA is very specific - a living will doesn't hold weight. There is a state-approved form that needs to be signed.

Second, I wonder if she'll be liable for a civil suit by the family, if she did have a duty to act.

Third, EMS "authority" varies by jurisdiction. Some places allow 911 to talk people through procedures, but this opens them to liability. So it's possible that the dispatcher was correct when they said that this lady wouldn't be liable.

And in CA, assisted living facilities typically are glorified apartments. You get help with cooking, sometimes medications (ie, dispensing), help arranging appointments and to/from doctor visits and what not. There's no actual CARE given regarding medical stuff. Skilled nursing facilities are the "nursing home" that most people visualize ... which in some parts of CA, is not much.

I completely agree, you provide the help you can in an emergency situation and then let the medical professionals make the big decisions.

One thing I find missing from this discussion is the differentiation between first aid and medial care. Simpy put, first aid is something that can be provided by anyone as a stop-gap measure in emergency situations. This situation clearly falls into the realm of first aid; the nurse on the phone wasn't being asked to do anything more than the average Joe on the street would be asked. She wasn't being asked to provide medical care.

A policy against providing medical care makes sense, banning first aid does not.

What if the woman slipped, resulting in a severe cut rather than having a heart attack? Had the caller stood there and allowed her to bleed out would those defending her view this any differently?

You make an excellent point. Paradoxically, this victim would have been better off out on the street than in her facility - Not that everyone passing by would been willing or able to render first aid, but usually some one steps up.

That's a good point, Denis, but legally or in terms of the wording of the actual company policy, I don't know if there is a clear distinction between the two.

This incident took place in California and I was looking at the California "Good Samartian" law and it mentions "medical care" but not "first aid". I agree with what you're saying, but I don't know if this commonsense distinction is clearly spelled out.

The company is now saying that the caller misunderstood the company policy, but the wording of the policy is probably just as vague about any distinction between first aid and "medical care". Especially when the caller is a nurse and an employee of the victim's housing facility (although not employed as a nurse), I can see where there can be some confusion.