Professional Accountability And Patient Safety

Professional Accountability And Patient Safety 1
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND PATIENT SAFETY
by [Name]
Course:
Tutor:
Institution
City
Date

Professional Accountability And Patient Safety 2
Violation of any of Australia’s professional codes of conduct, policy frameworks and
or guidelines of practice in nursing is regarded as professional misconduct and could hold one
accountable to the regulation authorities (Finkelman 2017). This paper studies such a case in
which a practitioner engaged in a professional misdemeanor. The paper focuses on the
circumstances surrounding the incidence, the chronology of events before and during the
occurrence and the aftermath of the incident. The author winds up by looking at the current
guidelines and policy structures put in place by the authorities to prevent such incidences
from ever happening.
The Healthcare Complaints Commission vs. Tripodis was a case presented to the
Civil and Administrative Tribunal in November 2017 and filed as case number
2017/002222095 accessed from https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/
5a695a5de4b058596cbadbe0. The case involves Ms. Vicky Tripodis, then a registered nurse
and Patient A who passed on while undergoing treatment at Medical Subacute Unit (MSU) of
Long Bay Hospital in controversial circumstances leading to the subsequent litigation. Patient
A was a 61-year-old inmate at Long Bay Correctional Complex. The patient suffered from
the cancer of trachea and had, therefore, undergone laryngectomy at Prince of Wales Hospital
the previous year. He also suffered chronic lower back inflammation, hypertension,
gastroesophageal reflux disease, slight cardiac infarction and left knee amputation done in
1990 following a gunshot wound. At the time of his demise, Patient A had been admitted at
the Medical Subacute Unit (MSU) of Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network at
Long Bay Correctional Complex in NSW. History showed that the patient had a tradition of
being abusive to the medical staff and uncooperative with the medication. Prior to his death,
the patient had refused to communicate to the medical caretakers through writing as he was
incapable of communicating verbally.

Professional Accountability And Patient Safety 3
During the case proceedings, the HCC submitted that on the evening of February 5th
2015 Ms. Tripodis, reported to her station at Long Bay Hospital where she was in charge of
the facility’s Medical Subacute Unit (MSU) where Patient A had been admitted. She was to
be assisted by a nurse aide throughout the 12 hour period. The patient was to be kept under
close monitoring through two visual observations per hour where his airway and breathing
condition was to be assessed. During the rounds, the nurse was to check on the patient to find
out the status of self-administration nebulized saline that Patient A was using. Additionally,
the nurse was expected to develop and maintain proper documentation regarding the
condition of the patient all through the night. Despite all these activities, Ms. Tripodis only
administered 10mg of diazepam to the patient at 8.00pm and never saw him again until
6.35am the following day when a prison warden notified her about Patient A’s critical
condition. The patient was found stiffly seated by the door, no pulse, not talking, not
breathing and, cold to touch in what Krautscheid (2014) and Standing (2017)describes as
rigor mortis state.
The commission thus accused Ms. Tripodis of two accounts of unacceptable
professional conduct contrary to section 139B (1) (a) and (I) of the National Law. The
Tribunal found the defendant guilty of professional misconduct and was reprimanded in
strongest terms possible for adopting behavior that falls too way below the standards
expected of such an office bearer. Her practicing license was suspended for a period of six
months. She would only be eligible for service once she had successfully undergone through
a course in morals of expert practice endorsed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, such
course to address obligation of healthcare, responsibility, principles of nursing practice and
working in a difficult environment. On expiry of the time of the suspension, the respondent
was required to practice under the aberrant or direct supervision of a division one enlisted
medical attendant with no outstanding conditions on his/her registration. The supervisor