Court order granted to bar HCW from medical work
State cites cavalier disregard’ of precautions
In successfully seeking a temporary restraining order to prohibit a laboratory phlebotomist in Palo Alto, CA, from continuing any blood-drawing or patient care duties after she admitted to reusing needles, state prosecutors outlined a series of findings from public health investigators.
The documents were filed by Elizabeth Edwards, JD, state deputy attorney general, on April 29, 1999, in the Superior Court of San Mateo County. The application for a temporary restraining order cites findings that were based on interviews with the phlebotomist and other principals in the case by public health investigators that included Sara H. Cody, MD, communicable disease control officer for the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, and Donald Newbold, MT, a laboratory field services examiner for the state Department of Health Services. The temporary restraining order was granted on April 29, 1999, barring the phlebotomist from blood drawing, patient care, and related activities. At a subsequent hearing on May 14, the court extended the order indefinitely, pending trial on the case for a permanent injunction. The findings by the health investigators and allegations by state prosecutors presented in the court documents are summarized as follows:
• Defendant admits that she knowingly and willfully reused needles on multiple patients while working as a phlebotomist at a SmithKline Patient Service Center (PSC) in Palo Alto in February or March 1999. Defendant admitted to two investigators that she reused approximately five butterfly needles during the first week or two of March 1999. However, defendant admitted to another investigator that she reused butterfly needles on five to 10 patients during a two-week period when she could not get more butterfly needles because the SmithKline supply department was moving.
• An investigator later confirmed that the defendant’s PSC in Palo Alto received shipments of butterfly needles on Jan. 14, 1999, and March 2, 1999. The supply department’s relocation took place over three days on Feb. 3-5, 1999. Supplies were delivered within two to three days of receipt of the order, but at most within five to six days if they had to be ordered from the vendor. Accordingly, defendant’s stated reason for reusing butterfly needles is not substantiated, nor is her report of her frequency of reusing needles. For example, defendant ordered butterfly needles on Feb. 24, 1999, and defendant’s PSC received the shipment of butterfly needles on March 2, 1999. Yet SmithKline supervisors located defendant’s basket of used and "washed" butterfly needles three weeks later on March 23, 1999. The needles had been placed back into their original packaging, and some contained visible blood deposits. This was more than six weeks after the supply department had relocated.
• There also is evidence that defendant allegedly intentionally mislabeled blood specimens to cover up mistakes and to avoid recalling patients for further blood drawing. There is further evidence that defendant allegedly used the same pipette to pipette blood between specimens from several different patients, causing cross-contamination; used the same pipette to transfer both blood and urine; and rarely wore gloves. Defendant appeared to be cavalier in her disregard of the most basic precautions designed to protect patients from harm.
• There is evidence that defendant allegedly substituted her own judgment for that of referring physicians when patients presented at the PSC without requisition forms or when patients asked defendant for their test results. There is evidence that defendant allegedly provided patients with test results that were only to be given by physicians.
• Defendant’s report of the reasons why she reused needles, her claims regarding the number of patients upon whom she reused needles, and the frequency with which she reused needles appears at this point to be inconsistent with the facts the department has gathered. The additional evidence indicating further wrongdoing would, among other concerns, cause false laboratory results, thereby causing additional potential harm to patients. Approximately 3,600 patients have been notified that they may want to be tested for bloodborne diseases. Defendant’s actions have clearly caused widespread anxiety.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content