Nurse Needlestick at Pediatrician -- WWYD

[BunnyBee]

I agree with Hanna Addict. If you didn't see the stick or know when it could have happened, how do you know she wasn't stuck first? Your lawyer was trying to protect your son too. As a lawyer who deals with medical professionals all the time, they're not different from the rest of the population. Nurses and doctors get confused or CYA or yeah, even flat out lie. Your job is to protect your kid, not the unknown medical professional. You wouldn't have a right to the nurse's blood test results specifically or any identifying information on her, but you should have a right to know whether your son is at risk for any blood-borne illnesses.

[123LuckyMom]

The point lalasmama was making us that only a grossly unethical or incompetent nurse would EVER use a used needle on a patient. And the nurse would know the needle was not sterile since she was the one who was stuck. To suspect that the nurse may have been stuck first and then used the needle is to accuse that nurse of gross incompetence and or intentional (and criminal) malice. It seems that the OP has no reason to suspect her pediatrician's nursing staff, or this nurse in particular, is either grossly incompetent or criminally malicious, so requesting medical information from the nurse is not necessary and, for lack of a better term, assholian.

I'm so sorry this happened, OP, because the multiple needle sticks are so hard on your child, but I think you're very thoughtful to comply and provide the sample. I do hope you'll be able to mitigate the negative effects on your child. It's a sucky situation all around, but try not to take it personally. Nobody really suspects your child is a danger. All of this is just paperwork for insurance purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baby Bargains

[robinsmommy]

Wouldn't the lawyer be trying to make sure his client is protected against lawsuits BY the nurse? For the child potentially infecting her, if anything happened, and that would be why her blood tests would be good to have, to prove that she had the infection before the needle stick?

We all know this is unlikely, but I think the lawyer is just doing his job and making sure that his client is protected, both from lawsuits by the nurse, and for the potential exposure to the child if the nurse got a needle stick first.

I think at the very least, getting a better description of what happened from the office is a good idea.

[BunnyBee]

The point lalasmama was making us that only a grossly unethical or incompetent nurse would EVER use a used needle on a patient. And the nurse would know the needle was not sterile since she was the one who was stuck. To suspect that the nurse may have been stuck first and then used the needle is to accuse that nurse of gross incompetence and or intentional (and criminal) malice. It seems that the OP has no reason to suspect her pediatrician's nursing staff, or this nurse in particular, is either grossly incompetent or criminally malicious, so requesting medical information from the nurse is not necessary and, for lack of a better term, assholian.

I'm so sorry this happened, OP, because the multiple needle sticks are so hard on your child, but I think you're very thoughtful to comply and provide the sample. I do hope you'll be able to mitigate the negative effects on your child. It's a sucky situation all around, but try not to take it personally. Nobody really suspects your child is a danger. All of this is just paperwork for insurance purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baby Bargains

If it happened so quickly that OP didn't see it and no one in the room even reacted, it wouldn't be malice. It would be an accident for which there should be protocols in place to protect both patients and nurses. No one is suggesting the nurse stuck herself first in the hallway. If both got stuck in the flurry, it is plausible that the needle stuck the nurse first or even child-nurse-child.

[calebsmama03]

Wouldn't the lawyer be trying to make sure his client is protected against lawsuits BY the nurse? For the child potentially infecting her, if anything happened, and that would be why her blood tests would be good to have, to prove that she had the infection before the needle stick?

We all know this is unlikely, but I think the lawyer is just doing his job and making sure that his client is protected, both from lawsuits by the nurse, and for the potential exposure to the child if the nurse got a needle stick first.

I think at the very least, getting a better description of what happened from the office is a good idea.

This was my take, too. I can see where a medical professional would be offended at the implication BUT it's also offensive to suggest a small child could have such an illness. This is how I read the "turnabout" comment.

[AngB]

Maybe I am the only one but I wouldn't drag my kid through more bloodwork for this. What if they get stuck again trying to draw blood for the check? It's not like it changes the outcome in any way.

[robinsmommy]

Maybe I am the only one but I wouldn't drag my kid through more bloodwork for this. What if they get stuck again trying to draw blood for the check? It's not like it changes the outcome in any way.

If you were the nurse, wouldn't you want to know sooner than later? Wouldn't her sex partners and family deserve to know, if possible? They can use a numbing agent to make things easier. And a change of venue for the draw may help as well.

[mikala]

Maybe I am the only one but I wouldn't drag my kid through more bloodwork for this. What if they get stuck again trying to draw blood for the check? It's not like it changes the outcome in any way.

No, I definitely thought the same, especially in a situation where the subsequent blood draws are likely to be a big deal to the child.

At minimum I'd want to get more details about the incident and sequence of events and would want to make sure my pediatrician was personally aware before my kid went through blood testing. I'd also be interested in knowing whether the act of testing would affect the nurses treatment. If it doesn't change anything for her either way whether she has proof of the negative result than there's less reason for the test.

[basil]

It should not affect your sons medical record.

It is typical procedure to do blood tests on the patient if a needlestick injury happens to a health care provider. I have been invoked a few times, been stuck once and stuck someone else another time. It sucks all around.

The reason for testing the source patient (your son) is to provide peace of mind to the nurse but also because if the source patient has HIV/hepatitis then the nurse could take prophylactic medications to decrease the chances of getting infected herself. I think with a low risk "unknown" source patient (such as your son) the recommendation would still not be to take prophylaxis.

Though I would take my own kids for a blood draw in this situation, I would not blame you for not getting extra blood draws with your sons history regarding blood draws and needles.

I don't get the concern about testing the nurse. Don't think that makes much sense.

[basil]

Wouldn't the lawyer be trying to make sure his client is protected against lawsuits BY the nurse? For the child potentially infecting her, if anything happened, and that would be why her blood tests would be good to have, to prove that she had the infection before the needle stick?

This is standard to do this blood work on the nurse as well at the time of the incident.