Medico-Legal Examination of a Radiography Incident

Medico-Legal Examination of a Radiography IncidentPatients preventive is of huge paramount when undergoing diagnostic treatment. It is the dynamic staffs fiduciary responsibleness to ensure patients do non sustain any injury during this process. But tho, sometimes mis wears happen and when injuries occur, thither could be repercussions. These mistakes could be as a result of negligence, no up to date training and incompetence. According to the Management of Health and Safety at Work(date), all employees are required to perform their pedigree safely with place causing any harm to patients and also, it is the employers obligation and duty to give fitted training, clear information and instructions to employees, in order for them to carry out their roles diligently.In reference to the court scenario, the incident that occurred between the patient, learner radiographer and the manage radiographer shall be discussed and related to the medico-legal aspects, scopes of practice and e thics and former(a) principles related to the health and social care environment. So also, the actions of the radiology manager and the manual use expert would be discussed.Student RadiographerFrom the court room video, it is obvious that the schoolchild radiographer and the radiographer did non have near communication. Mr Lung, the patient, was transferred from the Porter to the educatee radiographer but the supervising radiographer was not there to fasten sure the learner did the right checks. The student inspected the wheelchair, in which Mr Lung was brought to the department and confirmed it was safe. The student also went ahead to do the identity checks and risk of infection assessment and during this period, the radiographer still was not there to supervise. The student radiographer, as a result of the risk assessment done on the patient, decided to do an AP (Anterior Posterior) view breast x-ray. The radiographer came along after the student had just finished the risk assessment on Mr Lung and was rough to take an AP view of the chest. The radiographer never asked the student to update him on what she had done so far. He went ahead to ask the Mr Lung to stand for PA (Posterior Anterior) view of the chest x-ray, without carrying out a proper risk assessment and ascertaining Mr Lung had the capability of rest for the x-ray. Ehrlich and Daly (2009) states a radiographer should assess situations, exercise care, discretion and judgement. He should assume responsibilities, master key decisions and act in the best interest of the patient. Although he decided to do PA view on the patient in order to worry the best image of the patients chest, he compromised Mr Lungs safety by asking him to stand, without doing a proper risk assessment on him. The Societys Code of Professional Conduct states You must transfer effectively and appropriately with patients, introducing yourself and giving relevant information during their examination or treatment (s or.org). The importance of inter acting effectively with the patient is critical to the radiographer as hale as to the patient. Those techniques greatly improve the quality of the radiology image, as nearly as the patients care (Adler and Carlton, 2003)Although the radiographer is known to have good years of experience in his field, the student should not have hesitated to interrogatory his judgement of asking the patient to stand, despite the patients look into or told him that she had done a risk assessment of the patient standing(a) and the patient would not be able to stand.While the patient was standing, the radiographer travel the wheelchair behind the patient and told him to sit when he felt the need. The patient sit down when he needed to sit down but unfortunately, the wheelchair involute back and turned around, causing the patient to land on his renal pelvis and suffered from NOF (Neck of Femur) fracture. The A and E consultant also confirmed this but notwithstandin g the NOF fracture could have been made easier as a result of trick up degeneration, associated with old age (Gunn, 2007). But, this accident should not have occurred if proper risk assessment and precautions were undertaken. As one of Dutton et al, ( 2013) ethical principles non-maleficence the radiographer is obligated to practice in a safe manner at all times. To further turn away of the radiographers action, which affected the patient, (Dutton et al, 2013) gave another principle paternalism. This simply means a radiographer is justified to take action in instances in which not acting would do more harm than the lack of patient input into the decision. This however was not the courting, as the potential outcome (good view of the chest) did not apologise compromising the patients healthThe patient suffered pain as a result of negligence on the part of either the student radiographer not being able to assess the wheelchairs safety or the supervising radiographer forgetting to a pply the pasture brake. The radiographer claimed the accident was not his fault, as he employ the brake when he placed the wheelchair behind the patient. This could mean the wheelchair tyres had low pressure. If this were true, he could have realised the low pressure in the tyre when he did the safety checks on the wheelchair. And if indeed the wheelchair were unsafe when transferred to the student radiographer and she did not do the right assessment, the supervising radiographer will still be held responsible because the job was delegated to the student radiographer. According to NLIAH (2010), delegation is the process by which you (delegator) allocate clinical or non-clinical treatment or care to a competent psyche (delegate). However the delegator remains responsible for the overall management of the service and accountable for the decisions and actions of the delegate.After the accident occurred, the supervising radiographer told the student to agree to the circumstance that the brake to the wheelchair was applied before placing it behind the patient, otherwise, they both would be in trouble. The student radiographer felt coerced into supporting his false intention, as she believed the brake was not applied. Dutton et al (2009), in one of their ethical principles autonomy- states the right of all persons to make rational decisions free from external pressure. Coercing the student radiographer made her odour bullied and harassed. According to Bullying and Harassment at Work (2014), it is the employers duty to prevent bullying. It is an offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or molest the recipient. Bullying could lead to retaliation, anxiety, humiliation, or demotivation. All these could lead to stress, loss of federal agency and self-esteem.The next day after the incident, the student radiographer followed one of the guidelines of traffic with bullying and harassment at work, by confiding in mortal and expressing her emotions of her feeling bullied (Dignity at Work Policy, 2012). This person was her practice educator and she listened without judgment. She transferred the case to the radiology manager for investigation.When accidents occur at work, these are meant to be constitution in the accident report form. In the NHS, Datix reporting is used, where incidents are account on a web-based system that can be used by anyone with access to the NHS net. Some of the information required includes details of the incidence and plurality involved.Reporting Incidents, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation (RIDDOR, 2013) is a law that requires employers and other people who are in control of work premises to report certain incidents. This is a legal requirement and it informs the enforcing authorities (Health and Safety, and Local Authorities) about deaths, injuries, occupational disease and dangerous occurrences, so they can iden tify where and how risks cabbage and whether they need to be investigated.Moreover, when the radiographer reported this incident in the datix system, it was reported that the wheelchair had its brake on, which was a false. He did this consciously just because he did not destiny to be in trouble or disciplined.