A 53-year-old man, experiencing chest pains, was admitted to an acute care facility for a diagnostic cardiac catheterization following the...

Question Answered step-by-step A 53-year-old man, experiencing chest pains, was admitted to an acutecare facility for a diagnostic cardiac catheterization following the determination that he had experienced a mild health attack. During the catheterization, a cardiac stent was deemed necessary and the patient was started on Plavix and IV heparin at 1,000 units per hour. A partial thromboplastin time (PTT), done 6 hours into the therapy, indicated a prolonged clotting time and the heparin was reduced to 900 units per hour. No further PTT tests were ordered or done. At trial, the nurse noted that a repeat PTT could have been done without a direct physician’s order.Eleven hours after the heparin dose was reduced to 900 units per hour, the patient experienced a severe headache, profuse sweating, nausea, vomiting, and markedly increased blood pressure. Though the cardiologist was promptly notified, he did not immediately see that patient, did not order new laboratory tests nor further decrease the dosage of the heparin drip, and waited several hours for a neurology consultation. The patient subsequently had a fatal intracranial bleed, which occurred as he was being transported for an emergency computed tomography (CT) scan.The patient’s family named in the subsequent lawsuit the cardiologist, the cardiac care nurse, and the hospital.Questions – Did the nurse act appropriately in notifying the cardiologist of the patient’s initial distress when he experienced the severe headache, nausea, vomiting, and increased blood pressure? – Did the nurse, in this case, act as a patient advocate? – Which of the models of patient advocacy should the nurse have considered in this case and why? – Who should be found to have liability in this case? Health Science Science Nursing GEB 20162 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)