Discussion #3: Use References From Scholarly Literature

Discussion # 3 Use references from scholarly literature to support all postings

Mrs. M. was admitted to an acute care facility for removal of a noncancerous brain lesion. Following her surgical procedure, she had problems swallowing, but no difficulty with respirations and breathing. On x-ray, her lungs showed no signs of congestion or infiltration, and she was receiving humidified oxygen via an oxygen mask. During transport from her hospital room to x-ray for a repeat chest film, the humidifier attached to her oxygen line was accidentally placed on its side, allowing water to enter her lungs, leading to aspiration pneumonia and subsequent readmission to the intensive care unit (Guido, 2020). The transport was conducted by an untrained patient transporter who had no knowledge of the precautions necessary for safely transporting patients on humidified oxygen. The lack of training and standard protocols contributed significantly to the adverse event (Lynn et al., 2019). The patient subsequently filed a lawsuit against the medical center, asserting neglect in handling her oxygen therapy equipment, which resulted in her pneumonia and extended recovery time. The court initially ruled in favor of the medical center, citing the absence of expert testimony to support liability (Guido, 2020). The patient appealed, raising questions about the necessity of expert testimony and the qualifications required for such testimony in cases involving standard of care breaches (Guido, 2020).

Paper For Above instruction

1. Was an expert witness needed for the jury to understand the issues being tried?

In cases involving medical negligence and standard of care issues, expert witnesses are generally essential for the jury to fully comprehend the complexities of the clinical situation. Expert testimony provides specialized knowledge, elucidating what constitutes acceptable professional standards and whether those standards were breached (Gleeson & Smith, 2018). In this particular case, the mishandling of humidified oxygen and subsequent aspiration pneumonia involve technical aspects of respiratory therapy and patient safety protocols. The untrained transporter's lack of knowledge regarding precautions for humidified oxygen indicates a breach of standard procedures, which may not be apparent to laypersons (Kirkwood et al., 2020). Therefore, an expert witness specializing in nursing standards or respiratory therapy would have helped clarify whether the standard of care was met. Without such expert testimony, the jury could struggle to understand the clinical nuances and the significance of the mishandling, potentially leading to an unjust verdict (Baile & Timmer, 2018). Thus, expert testimony is crucial in translating complex medical standards into comprehendible evidence for a lay jury.

2. Did the patient transporter’s testimony negate the need for expert testimony regarding standards for patient transporter when the patient was receiving humidified oxygen?

The patient's transporter acknowledged that he had no formal training and was unaware of the specific precautions necessary when transporting a patient on humidified oxygen. While his testimony establishes a clear lack of training and knowledge, it does not inherently negate the need for expert testimony to define the professional standards that should guide patient transport in such circumstances (Roberts et al., 2017). The absence of specialized training and awareness raises questions about the facility’s policies and the scope of responsibilities assigned to untrained personnel. An expert witness, such as a nursing educator or a healthcare quality specialist, could have articulated the accepted standards, training requirements, and institutional protocols for transporting patients with oxygen therapy (Johnson & Clement, 2019). Therefore, the transporter’s testimony alone cannot substitute for expert evidence that delineates what the standard of care requires in these situations; instead, it underscores the necessity of expert standards to demonstrate negligence or compliance.

3. If it was determined that expert testimony was needed, what type of qualifications would you have chosen for the expert in this case?

If expert testimony was deemed necessary, the ideal expert would possess a background in respiratory care and patient safety protocols, with clinical experience in oxygen therapy management. Such an expert could be a registered respiratory therapist or a nurse with advanced training in medical-surgical nursing and patient safety standards (Hepner et al., 2020). Credentials should include licensure and certification from recognized bodies such as the National Board for Respiratory Care (NBRC) or the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC). Additionally, the expert should have practical experience relevant to transport procedures, oxygen therapy, and institutional safety protocols, and be familiar with accrediting organization standards like those from The Joint Commission. Their role would be to clarify what constitutes appropriate training, handling procedures, and institutional policies for patient transport, especially regarding oxygen equipment (Lewis et al., 2019). Such qualifications ensure the testimony is authoritative, credible, and rooted in evidence-based practice.

4. How would you decide the appeal?

In deciding the appeal, I would analyze whether the absence of expert testimony significantly impacted the fairness of the trial and the clarity of the evidence presented. The initial court’s ruling that expert testimony was required aligns with legal standards requiring specialized knowledge for complex medical negligence cases (Gleeson & Smith, 2018). Given that the transport mishandling involved technical knowledge about oxygen therapy that laypersons cannot reasonably interpret, the appellate court should uphold the original decision to require expert testimony. The appellant (the patient) demonstrated that the untrained transporter’s lack of awareness contributed to her injury, which indicates a possible breach of professional standards. Removing the requirement for expert testimony in this context might undermine the standards of medical and patient safety, which are inherently complex (Johnson & Clement, 2019). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing that expert evidence remains necessary to ensure that legal judgments are grounded in clinical realities and professional norms.

References

• Baile, W. F., & Timmer, J. (2018). Communication skills training for healthcare professionals. Journal of Patient Safety, 12(3), 137–142.
• Gleeson, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Standards of expert testimony in medical malpractice: Legal and ethical implications. Health Law Journal, 31(2), 180–195.
• Hepner, M., Gupta, A., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2020). Building capacity for effective expert testimony in healthcare. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 46(4), 687–704.
• Johnson, P., & Clement, D. (2019). Ensuring quality and safety in patient transport: The role of expert standards. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(15-16), 2802–2809.
• Kirkwood, C., Kelleher, K., & McKinney, J. (2020). Legal considerations in healthcare transport: Insights from medical malpractice law. Medical Law Review, 28(4), 700–718.
• Lewis, A., Walker, S., & Roberts, K. (2019). Credentialing and training standards for healthcare transport personnel. Nursing Management, 50(6), 24–31.
• Roberts, E., Smith, H., & Lear, S. (2017). The role of expert testimony in healthcare malpractice cases. Legal Medicine, 29, 22–29.
• Guido, G. W. (2020). Nursing Law and Ethics. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
• Lynn, T. D., Johnson, J. R., & Martinez, L. (2019). Patient safety and the importance of proper training for healthcare providers. Healthcare Quality & Safety, 4(2), 112–118.