The health care providers were aware that the two-week-old twins had staph infections, and they knew that they required a blood thinner, Heparin. The pharmacy techs brought the adult concentration of Heparin, and the kids were administered with an extreme dosage for their weight and size. The pediatric unit's medical staff did not check the medicine for accuracy before administering it to the patients. The pharmacists, too, failed in their practice by delivering the wrong medicine. However, if all the staff on duty checked the medicine, they would have realized that it was not the accurate dosage for the twins. The kids would not have been injured if they were given the correct dosage. Therefore, the grounds of the lawsuit should be both malpractice and negligence.
I concluded the situation was both malpractice and negligence because of the legal elements evident in the scenario. The malpractice law elements in the situation include; damage, duty, breach of duty, and cause (Bal, 2009). The medical staff had the duty to treat the twins with staph infections. They failed in their duty by giving the adult concentration of Heparin to the young patients. Also, they neglected their duty by failing to check the medicine for accuracy before administering it to the patients. The patients suffered from the overdose, and they had to be given another treatment, which would not have been there if they were given the correct dosage. The twins were injured by the strong dosage administered to them. Therefore, the four legal elements show medical malpractice in the situation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Healthcare providers failed to meet some ethical principles in their practice. First, they did not focus on the ethical principle of beneficence. The principle asserts that healthcare providers should do everything they can to benefit the patients in every situation (Summers & Morrison, 2009). The health care providers did not follow the procedure and treatment to do good to the twins. They did not consider that the dosage could have been an overdose for the kids. Therefore, they failed to maintain a high level of knowledge and skill in treating ailing kids.
The health care providers also failed in the ethical principle of non-maleficence. The principle is projected to finish the goal for medical practitioners' decisions (Summers & Morrison, 2009). The health care providers should have considered whether the dosage they were to administer would harm the twins. They harmed the sick twins by administering an overdose. The medical staff's decision aimed to benefit the kid, but they treated them for an overdose due to their wrong decision.
The health care providers could have prevented the situation if they had followed the correct treatment procedures, specified protocols, and particularly the checklists. The protocols should have been reviewed preceding the treatment. The medical staff should have checked the medicine if it was appropriate for the two weeks-old twins. If they had checked the medicine before using it, they would realize that it was not the accurate dosage for kids. Additionally, the medical staff would have prevented the situation if the treatment was slow enough to ensure that everything was okay before administering the dosage (Kongstvedt, 2001). A slowed treatment would have prevented the medical staff from moving ahead when they are not sure that everything was well. Finally, the staff should have prioritized the safety of the twins before starting the treatment. They would have provided the correct dosage after checking if it's the right one for the kids.
References
Bal, B. S. (2009). An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 467(2), 339-347. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0636-2
Kongstvedt, P. R. (Ed.). (2001). The managed health care handbook. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Summers, J., & Morrison, E. (2009). Principles of healthcare ethics. Health Care Ethics. 2nd ed. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 41-58. http://samples.jbpub.com/9781284124910/9781284124910_CH02_OnlineCat.pdf
