You must find gaps or missing connections between accreditation, legal and ethical concepts. Fill in the gaps, expand and build on the existing comments. Legal and Ethical Concepts The hospital and staff had ethical and legal responsibilities to this patient. Legally, the hospital and its administrators were responsible for ensuring the competency of its staff, including physicians and nurses, and for having an adequate number of staff to provide that care. Another legal responsibility the hospital owed to the patient was timely care (Pozgar, 2016). These legal responsibilities coincide with the physician's ethical responsibilities of providing competent, compassionate care and using other health professionals' skills as provided by the American Medical Association's (AMA) Principles of Medical Ethics (American Medical Association, 2001, June). These responsibilities were not upheld in this case. The patient did not receive the competent, timely care he deserved, and the physician with the required expertise was not initially consulted. Ethical Duties and Theories Pozgar (2016) describes ethical duties and theories, some of which apply to the Darling v. Charleston case he presented. One ethical duty the hospital and its staff owe the patient is to cause no harm, an aspect of nonmaleficence. Beneficence is another related ethical duty?
a) Laparoscopic instruments
b) Any instruments that have a lumen or cannula
c) Power drills
d) Suction devices