Thephysician cannot entirely avoid the liability upon behaviors of theirjunior employees like nurses. Usually, misperception erupts due tolack of understanding of conception of distanced responsibility basedon the legal principle of respondeat superior. Respondent preferredcaters for the general regulation that the boss is responsible forthe deeds of their staffs when on duty. It is based on the dependentmodel of accountability implying getting accountability is notdependent on any inappropriate act by the staff (Rusell and Thornton,2000). For example, any negligent act when attending a patient isheld liable to the physician as the team is representing the healthcare facility.
Retentionliability is based on the deeds of staffs that are beyond the scopeof his or her working environment. For example, obligating thephysician for the criminal acts of their officers which are beyondthe working station. It is argued on the basis employer was supposedto have conducted a thorough investigation on the credibility of theemployee before hiring. The assumption is that the carelessness mayhave led to the employment of criminal who may pose other threats(Russell et al., 2000).
Aphysician may be held liable for the harassment of staffs by otherofficers or harassment of patients by employees when attending them.The basis for holding the physician accountable is that there shouldbe existing policies protecting the workers and patients from theharassment. Apart from formulating policies, a thorough investigationshould be done in any case on harassment and prompt actions takenagainst harassers. However, by lifting the consciousness ofdisrupting behaviors, inspiring the eradication them, and ensuringproper communication amongst the healthcare team, patient welfare mayprogress together with development in individual and medical facilityperformance.
Russell,G and Thornton, R.G. (2000). The Edges of .Proc(Bayl Univ Med Cent),13(3): 300–302.