In this case, several main parties are involved in resolving the current conflict. First of all, this is the operator of the nursing facility, who is appealing against the revocation of his license, which he was deprived of after the verdict in the case of Nepa v. Commonwealth Department of Public Welfare (Pozgar, 2014). This decision was made on the basis of evidence provided by the departments themselves during an internal investigation based on the testimony of three former employees. Residents affected by the actions of the nursing facility operator are also indirectly interested parties in this case. This case can be found in Pozgar, George D. (2014) Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals (4th Edition), the year of its holding is 1988. The main ethical issue, in this case, is how operators do not have sufficient qualifications to perform their duties. On this basis, conflicts arise between them and residents who require professional care.
It is also necessary to highlight the essential facts that are present in this case. First of all, it should be noted the events that affected the revocation of the license. The operator of a nursing facility did the following:
- He had to unbutton the belt of one of the residents, which led to the fall of the pants, besides the Petitioner pushed another resident to kiss;
- Forced one of the residents to remove toilet paper from a commode after she had urinated and defecated;
- Verbally insulted a resident (Pozgar, 2014).
On the other hand, the nursing facility operator provided additional facts that discredited the witnesses, so the following facts should also be noted in the case:
- Former employees also violated subordination in their behavior with residents, as they mocked them in every possible way;
- The court decided that despite these facts about the employee, this does not cancel their testimony and does not explain the operator’s behavior;
- A decision was made because the nursing facility operator did not have sufficient competence to work with patients with mental illness (Pozgar, 2014).
The issue is whether insufficiently trained and unskilled employees can work with elderly patients with mental problems.
The court’s decision was based on the testimony of witnesses who are former employees familiar with the specifics of the work. In addition, the revocation of the license is based on the fact that these residents were completely dependent on the operator’s actions since they have mental problems and are incapacitated (Pozgar, 2014). Thus, one of the Petitioner’s duties was to show care and attentiveness to his patients who could not assess the adequacy of their actions. It is also essential that the court did not pay attention to the attempt to discredit the witnesses since the case itself is based on substantial evidence. Thus, the actions of the operator are not in doubt and are subject to proper consideration.
As already noted, the court’s decision is based on considering all the facts indicated by witnesses and substantial evidence. Thus, the operator’s appeal does not correspond to the data provided by them and attempts to discredit the owners. In addition, the court also did not soften the decision to revoke the license, even though the operator of a nursing facility does not have sufficient qualifications to deal with this type of resident (Pozgar, 2014). In addition, it is necessary to indicate their legal rights, which were violated in every possible way by the operator. Residents may also select when they want to wake up and go to bed, eat a choice of snacks outside of mealtimes, determine what to dress, participate in activities, and spend their time. In exercising his or her rights, the resident has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and retribution. Assertiveness and recognizing problems frequently have positive outcomes, and nursing homes are responsible for supporting residents in addressing and responding to such concerns immediately.
Pozgar, G. D. (2014). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.