Jump to content

So do those Jerk Aussie DJs deserve to be fired?


Boges

Recommended Posts

There is no reason people should not be discussing this nurses' poor professionalism now.

They are discussing it.....but they'd not convicted them as negligent! That's why the questions are swrling around the hospital? The question is on the hospital's seeming lax of secuirty, just like the article I've posted - which you dismissed as just an "opinion piece!"

Why do you find that so difficult to understand?

You keep bringing up oaths and "professionalism" to this ....like as if the oath is a sure guarantee that one will exhibit simple common sense at all times.

You're an accountant. You've made your precious oath and are called a professional. Do you make you clients' tax returns without knowing all the details about their finances/expenses? Do you make your decision based on incomplete information and suppositions?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They are discussing it.....but they'd not convicted them as negligent! That's why the questions are swrling around the hospital? The question is on the hospital's seeming lax of secuirty, just like the article I've posted - which you dismissed as just an "opinion piece!"

Why do you find that so difficult to understand?

So it is inappropriate for anonymous people to discuss something about someone who does not know we are discussing it?

I doubt the nurse will be "convicted" of anything.

She has/is likely to face a reprimand from her employer and from her professional association.

This much is a given just by listening to her in the link already provided and then reviewing the professional code that she is, presumably, accountable for.

She is not going to be going to jail over this.

It is not that big of a deal.

You keep bringing up oaths and "professionalism" to this ....like as if the oath is a sure guarantee that one will exhibit simple common sense at all times.

No, I bring them up for accountability reasons.

Humans make mistakes all of the time.

When we make a mistake that goes against the code we have taken an oath as to how we will conduct ourselves then we face the consequences of that.

Once again, in this case, the second nurse gets the reprimand(s).

Once again, BFD.

It is not the same as going to jail and it is not the end of the world (although it may feel like it for a brief period of time - no one likes to have their unprofessionalism exposed for the entire world to see - it is mortifying and this is the greatest reprimand this poor nurse will ever experience).

You're an accountant. You've made your precious oath and are called a professional. Do you make you clients' tax returns without knowing all the details about their finances/expenses? Do you make your decision based on incomplete information and suppositions?

Once again, this is not relevant.

We are talking about disclosing personal and confidential information to people who should be, or should not be, receiving that specific information.

That has nothing to do with whatever fantasy you are trying to make up with having incomplete information which is a matter for another thread and has nothing to do with this case of the unprofessional nurse.

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it is inappropriate for anonymous people to discuss something about someone who does not know we are discussing it?

I doubt the nurse will be "convicted" of anything.

She has/is likely to face a reprimand from her employer and from her professional association.

This much is a given just by listening to her in the link already provided and then reviewing the professional code that she is, presumably, accountable for.

She is not going to be going to jail over this.

It is not that big of a deal.

No, I bring them up for accountability reasons.

Humans make mistakes all of the time.

When we make a mistake that goes against the code we have taken an oath as to how we will conduct ourselves then we face the consequences of that.

Once again, in this case, the second nurse gets the reprimand(s).

Once again, BFD.

It is not the same as going to jail and it is not the end of the world (although it may feel like it for a brief period of time - no one likes to have their unprofessionalism exposed for the entire world to see - it is mortifying and this is the greatest reprimand this poor nurse will ever experience).

Once again, this is not relevant.

We are talking about disclosing personal and confidential information to people who should be, or should not be, receiving that specific information.

That has nothing to do with whatever fantasy you are trying to make up with having incomplete information which is a matter for another thread and has nothing to do with this case of the unprofessional nurse.

As far as I know, you're the only one I'd ever read that had convicted, smeared and labeled them as negligent and incompetent....and unprofessional. Without knowing the full details about it.

You wouldn't even give it the benefit of the doubt - the possibility - that the hospital had been irresponsible with their security.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, you're the only one I'd ever read that had convicted and labeled them as negligent and incompetent....and unprofessional. Without knowing the full details about it.

So why does it matter so much then?

Do you think my opinion is going to make some kind of difference?

I don't think it is.

It's just a way for me to explore the professional implications of this nurse into my profession so that my staff and I do not do something as boneheaded as this second nurse has done.

And, once again, I am not talking about her being convicted of anything.

I have always discussed this in terms of her facing her employers and her professional association.

Although she likely is in violation of the UK's privacy code I choose not to delve into details on that because I just do not feel like reading their privacy law.

So, for me, this conversation has been a great way to learn things - how similar professions such as accounting and nursing truly are when it comes to securing P&C information.

That we deal with similar stresses - tight time lines and people wanting to know things right now whether or not they have a right to know those things at all,, etc....

So thanks for the chat even though we disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why does it matter so much then?

Do you think my opinion is going to make some kind of difference?

Same with mine. So why does it matter so much to you that I don't immaturely label these nurses as incompetent and unprofessional? So much so that you called anyone not putting the blame on the nurses as being, irrational? All I did was show that if there's anyone who's irrational, it's the one who convicts the nurses and yet admitting he doesn't know all the details - in other words, convicting them as guilty without a fair trial.

Aren't we here to discuss? Argue? Debate?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with mine. So why does it matter so much to you that I don't immaturely label these nurses as incompetent and unprofessional?

Given that I have provided substance to my argument I would hardly call my opinion "immature."

I have demonstrated, without a doubt, that the second nurse acted in an unprofessional way by re-linking to the incident in question and finding the UK nurses code of ethics by which I could quote from it to demonstrate in what ways she violated her own professional code.

So much so that you called anyone not putting the blame on the nurses as being, irrational? All I did was show that if there's anyone who's irrational, it's the one who convicts the nurses and yet admitting he doesn't know all the details - in other words, convicting them as guilty without a fair trial.

I have repeatedly stated that we are not talking about convicting her of anything.

What I have stated, repeatedly, is that she was unprofessional and deserves a reprimand for being unprofessional. This is based on hearing the incident in question and analyzing the code of ethics that she is supposed to abide by.

Given how many times I have stated this and how many times you keep talking about "convicted" I do think you are being irrational.

I mean, if you are unable to differentiate between what I have stated and what you keep erroneously thinking I am stating then clearly irrationality is an issue here.

Aren't we here to discuss? Argue? Debate?

What do you think we have been doing?

I think we have discussed it pretty well.

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that I have provided substance to my argument I would hardly call my opinion "immature."

What kind of substance is that? All you clearly showed is that you are willing to make full conclusive decisions without having all the information before you.

For all your lengthy talk....that's your "substance," in a nutshell.

Which is very unbecoming of a....... "professional," to say the least. Since you gave yourself as a shining example to what a professional ought to be, if I were you, I'd stay away from throwing words like, "incompetence" or "negligence." laugh.png

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it is inappropriate for anonymous people to discuss something about someone who does not know we are discussing it?

No. That's not what is being said. You resorted to personal attacks when a few people here defended the nurses and placed the blame on the DJs. You've already decided that the second nurse is definitely solely accountable.

What we're doing after that was basically debating which one is truly irrational about the whole thing. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I doubt the nurse will be "convicted" of anything.

She has/is likely to face a reprimand from her employer and from her professional association.

This much is a given just by listening to her in the link already provided and then reviewing the professional code that she is, presumably, accountable for.

She is not going to be going to jail over this.

It is not that big of a deal.

When I say "conviction"...it doesn't mean convicted in the court of law! I'm talking conviction through the court of public opinion - like your opinion - which is really based on pure ignorance, since you said it yourself, you don't know the full details.

I wonder if you'd say it's not a big deal if your own professional conduct as an accountant is put into question and your reputation smeared all over forums, following a well-publicized scandal? And it's been raked over by ignorant people who didn't know the full story.

No, I bring them up for accountability reasons.

Humans make mistakes all of the time.

When we make a mistake that goes against the code we have taken an oath as to how we will conduct ourselves then we face the consequences of that.

But that's what we want to know, isn't it? Accountability. I want to wait for the inquiry result before I tar and feather anyone.

Once again, in this case, the second nurse gets the reprimand(s).

How do you know???

For all you know the first nurse deserves a reprimand too....if she failed to implement the proper procedures she was trained with. That is, if she had the training.

As you said, she is supposed to be the "gate keeper." If the first nurse was trained to field the callers - which include verifying their identity - before patching them up to the second nurse, then she's liable too, isn't she?

And if the second nurse was trained to know that all calls that are patched up to her have all been verified by the "gate keeper," and that she isn't required to do a second verification - then she couldn't be held accountable, isn't it?

ISN'T IT?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of substance is that? All you clearly showed is that you are willing to make full conclusive decisions without having all the information before you.

For all your lengthy talk....that's your "substance," in a nutshell.

Which is very unbecoming of a....... "professional," to say the least. Since you gave yourself as a shining example to what a professional ought to be, if I were you, I'd stay away from throwing words like, "incompetence" or "negligence." laugh.png

Betsy, I have linked to and shown a clear understanding of the code of ethics that a RN in the UK is supposed to be practicing under.

I have taken the sections that clearly apply to this case and quoted them for you to see.

IOW - I have held your hand and instead of agreeing to disagree you continue with this nonsense.

There is a reason professionals have a code of ethics - it's because we are put into situations like the one the second RN was put in.

While you go on as to there being more details that need to come out, well, that's fine. An inquiry is necessary as I have already agreed to a long time ago.

But it still comes down to this: professionals have access to and possession of private and confidential information.

It is on the computers that we access with passwords, it's on paper and charts in files and, most importantly, it is in our heads.

The reason security has to start with someone taking their sworn oath on their code of ethics so seriously is because there is no practical way for any organization to adequately lock down someone's mouth without there being consequences.

The way we do this is through the honour system and swearing an oath.

Yes, I know this is all old fashioned but there's a reason for that - because it works.

Most professionals do not slip up.

And when a professional does slip up, like this second nurse, she is reprimanded, and enough people see and hear about this so that we can learn from it and all professionals can be more careful in the future.

That is the good news of this story - that professionals around the world are able to learn something very valuable from it.

So make your petty little comments and laughs all you like.

I take this case seriously and will not lower myself to your ad hominem remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That's not what is being said. You resorted to personal attacks when a few people here defended the nurses and placed the blame on the DJs.

Calling someone ignorant because they do not know what and how to be a professional is not an insult. It is a statement of fact.

I'm ignorant of many things too.

However, I know codes of ethics and swearing an oath which is why I'm in this thread so much.

You obviously do not know much about swearing an oath and how professionals conduct themselves which is why we are still discussing what no longer needs to be discussed.

You've already decided that the second nurse is definitely solely accountable.

What we're doing after that was basically debating which one is truly irrational about the whole thing. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I never said she was solely accountable.

I said that she deserves a reprimand based on the reasons that I have already stated ad nauseum.

An inquiry will see if there were any systemic failures and if anyone else involved should shoulder some of the blame.

This is a given and really is not a big deal.

When I say "conviction"...it doesn't mean convicted in the court of law! I'm talking conviction through the court of public opinion - like your opinion - which is really based on pure ignorance, since you said it yourself, you don't know the full details.

I'm allowed to have whatever opinion I like.

Given the following facts:

1) The second nurse swore an oath to be careful about releasing P&C info

2) The nurse released P&C info (as heard in the link above) that should not have been released

3) Therefore the nurse should be embarrassed and reprimanded for her failure.

There are no further extentuating circumstances that will come out to change my mind on this (well, I suppose if the DJ's somehow blackmailed her to release the info then I would change my mind).

Listen to the incident again and you will hear the second nurse not even try to verify who she is talking to which is terribly unprofessional.

I wonder if you'd say it's not a big deal if your own professional conduct as an accountant is put into question and your reputation smeared all over forums, following a well-publicized scandal? And it's been raked over by ignorant people who didn't know the full story.

People can say whatever they like.

If someone came here and linked to an audio recording where I provide P&C info without even trying to verify who I was talking to and then a person quoted from my code of ethics showing how I am supposed to be more careful, more professional than that then I would say that I have it coming.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this nurse doesn't think that she has her own humiliation coming.

She should have been more careful. Her own code demands it of her and she made a mistake.

But that's what we want to know, isn't it? Accountability. I want to wait for the inquiry result before I tar and feather anyone.

Saying that the RN should be reprimanded based on the reasons that I have provided is nowhere close to tar and feathering her.

She made a professional mistake and she will pay the price of a reprimand and severe humiliation.

Then life will go on. BFD.

How do you know???

For all you know the first nurse deserves a reprimand too....if she failed to implement the proper procedures she was trained with. That is, if she had the training.

Which is why I have been careful to distinguish that I am talking about the second nurse.

I don't have much comment on the first nurse because her role was so small, she is not the one who disclosed the P&C information, and the hospital policies probably play a bigger role in her story.

As you said, she is supposed to be the "gate keeper." If the first nurse was trained to field the callers - which include verifying their identity - before patching them up to the second nurse, then she's liable too, isn't she?

No, what I said is that all professionals are gate keepers to P&C information.

As such all professionals must be cognizant of our duties to not release P&C info.

This is why the second nurse deserves the reprimand - she was the one who released P&C info contrary to her sworn oath.

She should have either not released any information or tried to verify who she was talking to.

She did neither.

And if the second nurse was trained to know that all calls that are patched up to her have all been verified by the "gate keeper," and that she isn't required to do a second verification - then she couldn't be held accountable, isn't it?

ISN'T IT?

No, as a professional who has sworn and oath to protect one's P&C info that professional must always be aware of who he/she is talking to.

Once again - if I am the one who is releasing the P&C info then I am the one ultimately responsible for its release.

I can't go back and point the finger at someone else and say "she didn't verify this person properly" when I am the one who needs to verify who I am talking to and whether or not I am in a position to release information to that person.

That is why the oath is sworn in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy, I have linked to and shown a clear understanding of the code of ethics that a RN in the UK is supposed to be practicing under.

I have taken the sections that clearly apply to this case and quoted them for you to see.

You mean this part?

As a professional, you are personally accountable for actions and omissions in your practice and must always be able to justify your decisions. You must always act lawfully, whether those laws relate to your professional practice or personal life.

Failure to comply with this code may bring your fitness to practise into question and endanger your registration.

rolleyes.gif

What you quoted applies generally! My questions deal with this part of the code!

Keep your skills and knowledge up to date

  • 38. You must have the knowledge and skills for safe and effective practice when working without direct supervision
  • 39. You must recognise and work within the limits of your competence
  • You must take part in appropriate learning and practice activities that maintain and develop your competence and performance

Hence, I ask: having been assigned to look after the media-hounded royalties, did they have the necessary skills for effective practice when they were both working without direct supervision?

Were they working within the limits of their competence - were they given proper training?

And about confidentiality, take a look at this part:

respect people's confidentiality


  • 6. You must ensure people are informed about how and why information is shared by those who will be providing their care

Were these nurses properly trained or informed on HOW information will be shared with people like the queen perhaps....or any close relatives of Kate?

And that includes training on how to verify and differentiate pranks from real calls!

Stop squirming out of it! You can't. Rational decision doesn't go together with ignorance of facts. We don't know the full details. You can't make a definite rational conclusion based on limited information and from your own experience. First of all, you're not a nurse. Second, you're not in their shoes dealing with the royalty. Quite simple, really.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've already decided that the second nurse is definitely solely accountable.

Pretty much, yup!

For all you know the first nurse deserves a reprimand too....if she failed to implement the proper procedures she was trained with.

Ok, the first nurse may have gona against hospital procedures. She gets two days pay docked.

Big whoop.

As you said, she is supposed to be the "gate keeper." If the first nurse was trained to field the callers - which include verifying their identity - before patching them up to the second nurse, then she's liable too, isn't she?

Not for not verifying. She isnt giving out info, ergo no verifying needed.

And if the second nurse was trained to know that all calls that are patched up to her have all been verified by the "gate keeper," and that she isn't required to do a second verification - then she couldn't be held accountable, isn't it?

ISN'T IT?

No hospitable protocol would exist that a patched up call is grounds for release of info, Maybe in your screwy world where you havent a clue whats going on, but in reality that would never exist in a public/private domain. Maybe in a military world but not this.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Ask yourself that, cuz you have no clue what youre talking about.

The second Nurse will get the official reprimand , and that should be it. Why?

Who asked Kate if they can give out info? Did the second nurse? No, therefore she gave out info against the patients permission

Under the Data Protection Act in the UK, the patient is the only one who can grant access to medical info.

So the Queen calls, BFD

Same as William calling

Even if betsy herself called, with all sorts of histrionics and idiotic excuses.....nope not working.

The second nurse is the escape goat (sic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean this part?

rolleyes.gif

What you quoted applies generally! My questions deal with this part of the code!

Hence, I ask: having been assigned to look after the media-hounded royalties, did they have the necessary skills for effective practice when they were both working without direct supervision?

Were they working within the limits of their competence - were they given proper training?

Stop squirming out of it! You can't. Rational decision doesn't go together with ignorance of facts. We don't know the full details. You can't make a definite conlcusion basefd on that. Quite simple, really.

Geebus...SOS still huh?

Heres what you need to know, boiled down and clarified for anyone, including the obstinate , deluded, and misdirected ones out there.

Was Kate asked for a release regarding her medical situation?

No.

Then no info goes out. Not the Queen not anyone else unless the patient grants access.

How about you stop squirming trying to put others in place for the idiot nurse who opened her big fat mouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deal with the privacy act all the time . Plenty of other interests try to get access to some info I keep on file.

They get denied all the time. I get a special joy when its the cops calling for info. I engage them , they like to be jovial when they want something, yak it up, and then when they get to the meat of the call I tell them "sure, come to my office so I can verify who you are"

Hmm...they dont like that but thats not my problem .

Its not hard, although for some reason it appears to be for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geebus...SOS still huh?

Heres what you need to know, boiled down and clarified for anyone, including the obstinate , deluded, and misdirected ones out there.

Was Kate asked for a release regarding her medical situation?

No.

Then no info goes out. Not the Queen not anyone else unless the patient grants access.

You may deal with privacy all the time....just like Msj claims he does. Still, it's all speculation on your part. You don't know all the facts. Period. rolleyes.gif

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may deal with privacy all the time....just like Msj claims he does. Still, it's all speculation on your part. You don't know all the facts. Period. rolleyes.gif

Yes I do betsy...LOL I now all the facts I need to know.

Nice try though.

The 2nd Nurse did not get permission from Kate. ergo, the second nurse screwed up.

Thats all there is to this. Unless one cant figure that out cuz of.....um...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about you stop squirming trying to put others in place for the idiot nurse who opened her big fat mouth?

Dead on guyser.

The one who opens her pie hole is the one who is going to get the the lions share of the blame.

I guess saying "no" is easy for you and me but not other people. <shrug>

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess saying "no" is easy for you and me but not other people. <shrug>

True, seems they would rather blame the rain, or the traffic signal for the accident .

And we havent even touched on the point that a nurse is not the one to dole out info anyhow, that is the Doc's job...with patient approval of course.

"but the call was forwarded to me....and and and from the Queen no less. And media hounding me,,,,Why I just had to tell them ! "

Boo hoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a tax accountant I often get calls (and my staff too) to release various information to spouses, banks, etc.

I know it is my responsibility to only release information that I have consent to release.

Even to spouses.

Especially to spouses.

I train my staff to know this too.

At the end of the day I know it is my business that is on the line should one of my staff, or I, fail.

rolleyes.gif

So, you made sure you trained your staff. That's what I'm asking about the hospital.....did they train their staff? Especially those assigned to high-profile celebs, like Kate Middleton.

Oh my... comprehension problems for a couple of professionals here! Perhaps less focus on the oath-taking part, and more concentration on reading/comprehension skills. Hire a tutor. laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.png

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rolleyes.gif

So, you made sure you trained your staff. That's what I'm asking about the hospital.....

I have to train my staff.

Not all of my staff are professionals.

I have secretaries and bookkeepers and junior/intermediate accountants who are not enrolled in my designations program and, therefore, would not have seen our CEPROC (Code of Ethical Principles and Rules of Conduct) unless I take the time to show it to them.

My professional staff, otoh, have taken the same oath and have read the same CEPROC as I have during the education/certification process.

They know, and ought to know, what it is they are swearing an oath for since they will be held responsible for any violations of that code during the course of their professional duties.

Those professional staff (along with partners) also must follow a professional development plan which, as I have already mentioned, requires at least 4 hours every 3 year cycle just on ethics.

That is how professional organizations work - to keep professionals in the loop to reduce mistakes.

I'm betting that the second nurse is going to be discussed in many PD events in the UK for years, if not decades, to come.

Which is good - maybe it will keep everyone acting like a professional in the first place.

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm asking about the hospital.....did they train their staff? Especially those assigned to high-profile celebs, like Kate Middleton.

Oh my... comprehension problems for a couple of professionals here! Perhaps less focus on the oath-taking part, and more concentration on reading/comprehension skills. Hire a tutor. laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.png

I do love you parading stupidly arpound these parts.

Heres the thing, and of course you are not a professional so of course your ignorance abounds.

Professionals take courses to get their designations. All of them.

Every single one has course(s) that drill into the student the professional standards expected, be it legal or ethical standards. So upon graduation one already knows the details.

This nurse is one of those, she knows before she is ever hired that the rules are the patient is the only one who can release info or instruct the Doc to release info.

Her standards of duty are to the patient , including not giving out any details to anyone not involved in her care, and any slip up is hers to own, be damned what the hospital did or didnt do, she is the professional and she has the final duty of discharging her jobs with respect to privacy concerns and the Data Protection Act.

You make this so hard when it is so easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to train my staff.

Not all of my staff are professionals.

I have secretaries and bookkeepers and junior/intermediate accountants who are not enrolled in my designations program and, therefore, would not have seen our CEPROC (Code of Ethical Principles and Rules of Conduct) unless I take the time to show it to them.

Your company has your own CEPROC, related to your own designated program. That's like the hospital having its own CEPROC. That's not the same as the standard code of ethics you're pushing.

That's more like supporting my argument! rolleyes.gif

If you have to take time to show and train your staff about your own CEPROC (which deals with the field of accounting)....you should see clearly where I'm coming from about the hospital (which deals with the medical field), when I point out that there are those who question the hospital's seeming lax in security (one of which could be improperly trained staff).

Just because you took the time to train your own staff (and that you took an oath and therefore a professional) doesn't necessarily mean all workplaces are as diligent and consistent as you. Good for you to have done that!

Furthermore, there are different types of accounting - different types of specialties, as there are different types of nursing careers.

Overview

Assess patient health problems and needs, develop and implement nursing care plans, and maintain medical records. Administer nursing care to ill, injured, convalescent, or disabled patients. May advise patients on health maintenance and disease prevention or provide case management. Licensing or registration required. Includes advance practice nurses such as: nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Advanced practice nursing is practiced by RNs who have specialized formal, post-basic education and who function in highly autonomous and specialized roles.

http://occupations.c...eptionist-nurse

Thus that's one of the questions about these two nurses: Do they have specialized formal, post-basic education to function in highly autonomous and specialized roles? Were they given proper training in their designated roles?

There you go, MSJ! If you still can't get it with all that explanation - and still insist to squirm out of that one....I'd surely be very wary to have you as my accountant! laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.png

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your company has your own CEPROC, related to your own designated program. That's like the hospital having its own CEPROC. That's not the same as the standard code of ethics you're pushing.

That's more like supporting my argument! rolleyes.gif

It is not our firms' code. It is our professional designations' code that we have sworn an oath to uphold.

That is, any of our designated staff and partners have sworn an oath to uphold the professional designations' code.

Any staff who are not enrolled in courses with our professional designation need to be aware that they have P&C obligations too since they have access to P&C info and since they are not exposed to our professional code otherwise.

If you have to take time to show and train your staff about your own CEPROC (which deals with the field of accounting)....you should see clearly where I'm coming from about the hospital (which deals with the medical field), when I point out that there are those who question the hospital's seeming lax in security (one of which could be improperly trained staff).

My professional staff have sworn an oath to the CEPROC which is not our firms' code. It is our professional designations code for which our professional trained staff have spent 10 years to be educated on (among other things like tax and accounting standards etc).

Those nurses also go through an education process that involves learning about dealing with P&C info among other things that nurses need to know.

Just because you took the time to train your own staff (and that you took an oath and therefore a professional) doesn't necessarily mean all workplaces are as diligent and consistent as you. Good for you to have done that!

And yet you don't want me as your accountant. I shall weep the night away over that.

Once again, when a professional takes an oath they are stating that they will conduct themselves in a professional manner and in accordance with the code they have sworn an oath on.

I have already shown the code that this nurse failed to follow and it is her responsibility to know the code and to know how to conduct herself in a professional manner.

She failed to do so.

Furthermore, there are different types of accounting - different types of specialties, as there are different types of nursing careers.

Are you trying to claim now that this nurse isn't registered? That she is not a professional? Do you have any links to suggest that she was not a registered nurse? Please do share.

Thus that's one of the questions about these two nurses: Do they have specialized formal, post-basic education to function in highly autonomous and specialized roles? Were they given proper training in their designated roles?

Once again there is nothing specialised about protecting P&C info other than know your code, know who you are talking to and make sure you have permission.

It is not rocket science.

Given just how professional nurses are in everyday life I think if I was a nurse I would be offended by your notion that a RN is not specialised enough to follow her own code for which she swore an oath upon.

Yes RN's make mistakes but most of the time they do follow their code and do not make the mistake that is nurse made.

IOW, nurses face this type of thing everyday and are prepared to deal with it.

If they make a mistake then they take responsibility for it since they have sworn an oath and promised not to do what they just mistakenly done.

Oh no! Consequences! Shocking, I know.

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...