Nurses occupy a distinct position in the healthcare delivery chain, and Georgia common law holds them to a standard of care specific to their professional role. The nursing standard requires a nurse to exercise the degree of care and skill that a reasonably competent nurse with similar training and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. When a nurse’s care falls below that standard and a patient is harmed as a result, the nurse’s conduct may form the basis of a malpractice claim. Prescribing decisions, which fall under the physician’s scope, and hospital-level institutional failures such as staffing or policy deficiencies are distinct subjects addressed elsewhere.
Monitoring Failures
Patient monitoring is a core nursing function. Nurses are responsible for observing patients, recording physiological data, recognizing changes in clinical status, and escalating concerns when those changes indicate deterioration. A monitoring failure occurs when a nurse does not perform these observation duties with the frequency or attentiveness that the patient’s condition requires, and that gap in monitoring allows a clinically significant change to go undetected.
The standard of care for monitoring is not uniform across all patients. It is calibrated to the individual patient’s clinical status, the physician’s orders regarding monitoring frequency, and the institutional protocols governing the care setting. A post-surgical patient in a recovery unit may require vital sign checks at defined intervals. A patient receiving a medication with known hemodynamic effects may require continuous cardiac monitoring. A patient whose condition has been flagged as potentially unstable may require more frequent nursing assessments than a patient in stable condition.
When a nurse fails to perform monitoring at the frequency or level of attentiveness that the patient’s clinical situation demands, and the patient’s condition deteriorates during the monitoring gap, the claim alleges that a competent nurse would have detected the change earlier and initiated the appropriate response. The response might involve contacting the physician, activating a rapid response protocol, or implementing standing orders for the specific clinical scenario. The monitoring failure is not the deterioration itself. It is the failure to detect the deterioration in time to act on it.
Documentation Failures
Nursing documentation serves as both a communication tool and a legal record. It transmits critical information to other members of the care team, ensures continuity across shift changes, and provides a contemporaneous account of the patient’s status and the care delivered. When documentation is incomplete, inaccurate, or absent, both patient safety and the evidentiary record are compromised.
A documentation failure can take several forms. A nurse may fail to record a clinical observation entirely, leaving subsequent providers without information they need to make informed decisions. A nurse may record a vital sign reading at a time when the reading was not actually taken, creating a false impression of the patient’s physiological status. A nurse may omit documentation of an intervention, a patient complaint, or a communication with a physician, leaving a gap in the record that obscures what actually occurred during a critical period.
The legal significance of documentation failures extends beyond the question of whether the nurse met the charting standard. In litigation, the medical record is the primary source of evidence about what care was delivered and when. The legal principle that an event not documented is presumed not to have occurred creates a powerful incentive for thorough contemporaneous charting. A nurse who performed an assessment but failed to document it faces the prospect that the assessment will be treated as if it never happened.
Documentation failures can also have direct patient-safety consequences independent of their evidentiary significance. If a nurse observes a change in a patient’s condition but does not document it, the next nurse who assumes care of that patient begins their shift without knowledge of the change. The result can be a delay in recognizing a trend, a failure to escalate, or a continuation of a care plan that is no longer appropriate for the patient’s current status.
Consider a scenario where a patient’s vital signs are ordered to be recorded at regular intervals following a procedure. The nursing record contains no vital sign entries for a defined period during which the patient’s condition changes. By the time the next set of vital signs is recorded, the patient has deteriorated to a point that requires urgent intervention. The claim would allege that a competent nurse would have recorded vital signs at the specified intervals, would have recognized the change in clinical status, and would have initiated an appropriate response before the patient’s condition reached the point of crisis.
Verify current status of all statutes, rules, and judicial holdings at time of publication; legislative or judicial changes may have occurred.
Disclaimer
This content is produced exclusively for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to specific facts and circumstances.
No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this content without first seeking qualified legal advice from a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. Medical malpractice law involves complex, fact-intensive analysis that varies significantly depending on the specific clinical context, the parties involved, the applicable procedural rules, and the current state of statutory and case law at the time of the claim.
The statutes, rules, judicial holdings, and legal principles referenced in this content reflect the law as understood at the time of writing. Georgia law is subject to legislative amendment, judicial reinterpretation, and regulatory change at any time. Specific provisions discussed herein, including but not limited to damage cap rulings, tort reform legislation, statutes of limitation and repose, expert qualification standards, and procedural filing requirements, may have been modified, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication. Readers must independently verify the current status of all legal authorities cited before relying on any information contained in this content.
This content does not cover every aspect of Georgia medical malpractice law. Certain topics have been intentionally excluded from the scope of this publication, and the inclusion or omission of any particular subject should not be interpreted as a statement about its legal significance or relevance to any specific case.
The examples and scenarios presented throughout this content are hypothetical illustrations designed to clarify legal concepts. They do not represent actual cases, real parties, or guaranteed legal outcomes. The outcome of any medical malpractice claim depends on the unique facts of that case and the professional judgment of the attorneys and experts involved.
Nothing in this content should be construed as an opinion regarding the merits of any potential or pending claim, as a prediction of any legal outcome, or as an endorsement of any particular litigation strategy.