You may recall that in May I reported that two former Huntington Memorial Hospital (HMH) RNs were being investigated by our state Board of Registered Nursing (BRN). The two nurses in question are: Allysha Rae (Almada) Shin and Vicki Lin. They were terminated by HMH for violating hospital policies, they and the California Nurses Association (CNA) argued that they were fired for their unionizing activity at the hospital. Long story short the nurses with the help of the CNA filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB concluded that HMH inappropriately terminated the RNs and ruled that they were owed back pay and so forth, but HMH got the NLRB to agree that neither (Almada) Shin or Lin were eligible to work at HMH in the future.

Meanwhile the BRN began to investigate (Almada) Shin and Lin, I learned this from nurses that had been interviewed by BRN investigators regarding the incident. It would appear that the BRN investigator found the complaint to be substantiated and thus an “accusation” has been formally submitted. The accusations can be found by searching the license of both Allysha Almada and Vicki Lin.

Nurse (Almada) Shin is being cited for two causes for discipline from the BRN. They are:

• FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Incompetence)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2761, subdivision (a)(1), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), on the grounds of incompetence in that Respondent breached the Confidentiality Agreement, aided and abetted in the falsification of a medical record, and failed to comply with the double-check process for administering insulin. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 11 through 20, as though set forth fully.

• SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Violation of Nursing Practice Act)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under· section 2761, subdivisions (a) and (d), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), for general unprofessional conduct and/or violating or attempting to violate, any provision or term of the Nursing Practice Act. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 11 through 20, as though set forth fully.

Nurse Vicki Lin is being cited for two causes for discipline from the BRN. They are:

• FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Incompetence)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2761, subdivision (a)(l), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), on the grounds of incompetence in that Respondent breached the Confidentiality Agreement, violated hospital policy by falsifying medical documentation and failing to comply with the double-check process for administering insulin. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 17, as though set forth fully.

• SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Violations of Nursing Practice Act)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2761, subdivisions (a) and (d), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), for general unprofessional conduct and/or violating or attempting to violate, any provision or term of the Nursing Practice Act. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 17, as though set forth fully.

There may be some who think, and the NLRB is one, that what (Almada) Shin and Lin did isn’t worthy of an investigation by the BRN. However we are talking about the standard of care as it applies to “double-checking specific medication” and insulin is one of these. I’ve worked NICU/PICU almost my entire career, and I can never recall a time when any nurse I worked with was “too busy” to come and go through this very basic nursing practice – perhaps that’s because I prefer not to place my patients at risk because of a calculation error in how much insulin needs to be titrated.

I also found their comments as it relates to how they handle their passwords rather cavalier, especially in today’s environment where hospitals are being locked out of their systems due to ransomware, the over 1 million Equifax customers who’s personal information that may be at risk due to a security breech and so forth. So not leaving your passwords written down and left out willy-nilly where anyone can pick it up is actually quite significant and important to maintaining security, confidentiality, and patient privacy.

What I find interesting is the following scenario, what happens if the BRN prevails and one or both (Almada) Shin or Lin is found “guilty” as per the accusations. Does this then vindicate the HMH management for their original decision to terminate these two nurses? Does this mean that perhaps the NLRB made a rush to judgment about the facts of the case? Perhaps in the future the NLRB shouldn’t attempt to dictate nursing practice and leave it to the BRN, whose mission is to do just that!