Exceptional care and professional responsibility is a standard form of practice the general public rely upon for their health care needs. But, what happens when codes of conduct, rules and codes of ethics are violated and physicians fail to provide adequate care and diagnostics? When circumstance like this arise, who becomes responsible for the negligence on behalf of the patient? In the case of Orr vs. Bell, due to the negligence on behalf of Dr. Bell, the patient Orr went misdiagnosed and eventually became paralyzed. The review of this case will document and prove due to Dr. Bell’s failure to follow nationally recognized Radiologic ethics and rules Dr. Bell failed to determine Orr’s medical issue and therefore was responsible for the outcome
…show more content…
The first violation found within Doctor Bell’s practice was ASRT code of ethics #1 “The radiologic technologist acts in a professional manner, responds to patient needs, and supports colleagues and associates in providing quality patient care” (ASRT). This code was broken by Doctor Bell by due to the lack of the correct diagnostic for the patient. In turn Bell failed to communicate with to his colleagues in the emergency room the correct treatment plan prior to Mr. Orr’s discharge from the hospital. The second violation of the ASRT codes was the following; “The radiologic technologist assesses situations; exercises care, discretion, and judgment; assumes responsibility for professional decisions; and acts in the best interest of the patient.” It is the responsibility of the radiologist to provide professional decisions, and use his/her discretion with providing a diagnosis to a patient to ensure quality care. In addition, it should be known that a doctor will assume responsibility. Doctor Bell failed to use his discretion and professional judgement when he reviewed the patient’s medical symptoms and the CT images which lead to the misdiagnoses. More importantly, when Doctor Bell learned of Mr. Orr’s debilitating stroke, he should have assumed responsibility for his portion of error in misdiagnosing Orr’s …show more content…
In reviewing Orr’s legal case, I established that a violation had occurred that was in direct relation to the ARRT standards. The violation steamed form Bell’s unprofessional conduct: “engaging in unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to (ii) any radiologic technology practice that may create unnecessary danger to a patient’s life, health or safety. (ETHICS)”. Bell did not practice safe radiology technology practices, because of the lack of proper review of the CT images he missed the blockage of a major blood vessel in the patient’s brain which would eventually result in the massive stroke and paralyzed state of his
The first violation found within Doctor Bell’s practice was ASRT code of ethics #1 “The radiologic technologist acts in a professional manner, responds to patient needs, and supports colleagues and associates in providing quality patient care” (ASRT). This code was broken by Doctor Bell by due to the lack of the correct diagnostic for the patient. In turn Bell failed to communicate with to his colleagues in the emergency room the correct treatment plan prior to Mr. Orr’s discharge from the hospital. The second violation of the ASRT codes was the following; “The radiologic technologist assesses situations; exercises care, discretion, and judgment; assumes responsibility for professional decisions; and acts in the best interest of the patient.” It is the responsibility of the radiologist to provide professional decisions, and use his/her discretion with providing a diagnosis to a patient to ensure quality care. In addition, it should be known that a doctor will assume responsibility. Doctor Bell failed to use his discretion and professional judgement when he reviewed the patient’s medical symptoms and the CT images which lead to the misdiagnoses. More importantly, when Doctor Bell learned of Mr. Orr’s debilitating stroke, he should have assumed responsibility for his portion of error in misdiagnosing Orr’s …show more content…
In reviewing Orr’s legal case, I established that a violation had occurred that was in direct relation to the ARRT standards. The violation steamed form Bell’s unprofessional conduct: “engaging in unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to (ii) any radiologic technology practice that may create unnecessary danger to a patient’s life, health or safety. (ETHICS)”. Bell did not practice safe radiology technology practices, because of the lack of proper review of the CT images he missed the blockage of a major blood vessel in the patient’s brain which would eventually result in the massive stroke and paralyzed state of his