Medicating without a doctor seeing the kids

[JoLo0808]

So you don't actually KNOW. And the NP is NOT a doctor.

Legally? The NP absolutely can call in a scrip - prophylactic or otherwise - based on the medical history of the people involved, and his/her familiarity with said history.

What is it you hope to accomplish LEGALLY? An order for Mom to not medicate the kids?

She's not Mom - I AM!!!!! - both her and my ex said that they DID NOT take him in to the doctor - they just had her friend call in scripts based on symptoms. This NP has never seen any of my kids - I would know because I get the insurance bills - so they have no medical history on any of the kids. IF they were going through the Dr. who treated him I would be far less concerned.

but you are right - this is a forum for LEGAL advice and I'm sorry if my post is out of place.

 

[lealea1005]

I can't advise you on the legal aspect to your case, but I'm an RN and will tell you from that standpoint it's ethically wrong. Are your children seen at the NP's place of practice? The problem prescribing medication to people who are not seen in your practice is you are not then medically covered by a doctor. NP's still have to be covered by a doctor for prescribing and diagnosing. An agreement between the NP and the Doctor only covers the practice the NP is in. Good luck!

In his state an NP does not need MD supervision or collaboration.

 

[CJane]

So - am I understanding you to mean that if they take meds that she has prescribed by the NP, who does not see the kids in the first place, and something goes wrong, we wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on?

What legal leg do you believe you'd have to stand on if she has seen the kids? Suffering from an allergic reaction or known side-effect is not legally actionable in most cases.

 

[CJane]

She's not Mom - I AM!!!!! - both her and my ex said that they DID NOT take him in to the doctor - they just had her friend call in scripts based on symptoms. This NP has never seen any of my kids - I would know because I get the insurance bills - so they have no medical history on any of the kids. IF they were going through the Dr. who treated him I would be far less concerned.

but you are right - this is a forum for LEGAL advice and I'm sorry if my post is out of place.

Sorry, I read "Ex wife" rather than "Ex's wife".

Regardless, obviously this person has SEEN the kids in SOME capacity - maybe she was "doing a favor" and took a peek at the kids and called in a scrip w/out having them come into the office. Whatever, there's little to know legal issue here.

 

[JoLo0808]

What legal leg do you believe you'd have to stand on if she has seen the kids? Suffering from an allergic reaction or known side-effect is not legally actionable in most cases.

I was asking AngelaAZ to clarify what she meant by they would not be medically covered. I think I misunderstood her statement.

 

[LdiJ]

So you don't actually KNOW. And the NP is NOT a doctor.

Legally? The NP absolutely can call in a scrip - prophylactic or otherwise - based on the medical history of the people involved, and his/her familiarity with said history.

What is it you hope to accomplish LEGALLY? An order for Mom to not medicate the kids?[/QUOTE]

Its dad's wife that mom wants to stop medicating the kids. Its stepmom's nurse practioner friend who is prescribing.

 

[lealea1005]

Sorry, I read "Ex wife" rather than "Ex's wife".

Regardless, obviously this person has SEEN the kids in SOME capacity - maybe she was "doing a favor" and took a peek at the kids and called in a scrip w/out having them come into the office. Whatever, there's little to know legal issue here.

In addition, it's pretty common practice for a practitioner to keep an "on call" record to document circumstances like the one you describe. CJane is right, you weren't there, so you really don't know whether the NP looked at your son's throat or not. Although it's frowned upon these days, there are still many times an MD/NP/PA will treat the rest of the family once strep is confirmed on one family member.

 

[Proserpina]

So you don't actually KNOW. And the NP is NOT a doctor.

Legally? The NP absolutely can call in a scrip - prophylactic or otherwise - based on the medical history of the people involved, and his/her familiarity with said history.

What is it you hope to accomplish LEGALLY? An order for Mom to not medicate the kids?

Well, I'd be thinking more about having StepMom not medicate the kids unless it was an emergency situation. If Dad wants to medicate, the court order apparently allows for joint medical decisions - so OP should have at least been given the opportunity to discuss the matter.

ETA: Personally, I would also be more than a tad concerned if this was happening to me as OP has described. The very least she is owed is an opportunity to confer with her ex before her children are medicated. It was, after all, not an emergency situation.

 

[JoLo0808]

Sorry, I read "Ex wife" rather than "Ex's wife".

Regardless, obviously this person has SEEN the kids in SOME capacity - maybe she was "doing a favor" and took a peek at the kids and called in a scrip w/out having them come into the office. Whatever, there's little to know legal issue here.

Easy mistake - easily forgiven
No - the NP did not see the kids at all - she called in the scripts based on what step-mom described to her and what step-mom tells her about his medical history.
But I think I get it now... she is over-stepping a bit...and I have already told my ex that HE needs to communicate with me BEFORE his wife puts our kids (his and mine) on any medication.
Thank you!

 

[JoLo0808]

In addition, it's pretty common practice for a practitioner to keep an "on call" record to document circumstances like the one you describe. CJane is right, you weren't there, so you really don't know whether the NP looked at your son's throat or not. Although it's frowned upon these days, there are still many times an MD/NP/PA will treat the rest of the family once strep is confirmed on one family member.

I know there were 30 miles between my son and his step-mom today - I know that both my ex and step-mom said no one saw my son - and I know that this NP doesn't have an on call record for my son because that is with his doctor - who practices in a different city than the NP and has no association with. Strep was NEVER confirmed.

 

[lealea1005]

I know there were 30 miles between my son and his step-mom today - I know that both my ex and step-mom said no one saw my son - and I know that this NP doesn't have an on call record for my son because that is with his doctor - who practices in a different city than the NP and has no association with. Strep was NEVER confirmed.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying....the NP will need documentation backing up the fact that she called in or wrote a prescription. It may only be a notation in a notebook (hence, the "on call" book), but it has to be there in the event her prescribing & documentation practices are audited. If she's sloppy enough not to keep one then, IMHO, that's a big red light.

 

[LdiJ]

I know there were 30 miles between my son and his step-mom today - I know that both my ex and step-mom said no one saw my son - and I know that this NP doesn't have an on call record for my son because that is with his doctor - who practices in a different city than the NP and has no association with. Strep was NEVER confirmed.

If Strep was never confirmed then putting the whole family on antibiotics was contrary to accepted practise.

If Strep had been confirmed through testing then it wouldn't be so contrary.

I will share a funny story....

Strep is an infection that passes from human to animal (and vice versa), so if a child has strep and has a pet that cuddles a lot with the child, its likely that the pet will get strep as well.

When my daughter was little she got strep and suddenly one of our pets was obviously quite sick as well. The vet confirmed it was Strep and not only gave me medication for all of the rest of the pets in the household (and we had quite a few) but also gave me medication for ME as well...LOL.

I also went to a dentist once for a what I believed was a serious toothache and the dentist determined that it was an odd sinus infection instead, and the dentist gave me an antibiotic for that.

However these days the medical community does not want people on antibiotics unless its confirmed that they need antibiotics. So what stepmom and her nurse practioner friend are doing is NOT appropriate medically or ethically.

 

[Proserpina]

If Strep was never confirmed then putting the whole family on antibiotics was contrary to accepted practise.

If Strep had been confirmed through testing then it wouldn't be so contrary.

I will share a funny story....

Strep is an infection that passes from human to animal (and vice versa), so if a child has strep and has a pet that cuddles a lot with the child, its likely that the pet will get strep as well.

When my daughter was little she got strep and suddenly one of our pets was obviously quite sick as well. The vet confirmed it was Strep and not only gave me medication for all of the rest of the pets in the household (and we had quite a few) but also gave me medication for ME as well...LOL.

I also went to a dentist once for a what I believed was a serious toothache and the dentist determined that it was an odd sinus infection instead, and the dentist gave me an antibiotic for that.

However these days the medical community does not want people on antibiotics unless its confirmed that they need antibiotics. So what stepmom and her nurse practioner friend are doing is NOT appropriate medically or ethically.

I couldn't agree more.

(which might seem odd as I'm one of those people who is told to take antibiotics as prophylaxis, but there we have it)

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I would cart children to the regular doctor and explain the situation to him/her. The doctor who is covering this NP needs to know the situation.

 

[lealea1005]

I still say the NP is an idiot for treating for strep without examination and lab confirmation. Her malpractice carrier would not look favorably on it either.