disco2000

I read on the internet that they were going to RMC The Beast

Or it now makes it a HIPAA violation as it now allows that report to be tied to a particular person, but you have adamantly posted that you clearly disagree with that opinion, which is shared by many medical professionals here and elsewhere that have commented on her report...I guess time will tell if she loses her license. And if she does, we know you will not agree with it... Remember, with a professional license, one can violate a condition of that license and lose said license, even if the violation isn't a HIPAA violation. From the Ohio Board of Nursing: Merely removing someone’s name (or face, in the instance of images) from a communication does not necessarily protect that person’s identity. Under federal law (HIPAA), protected “individually identifiable information” includes health information that identifies the individual or can reasonably be used to identify the individual, in any form (oral, written, or otherwise) that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health of an individual. "A nurse licensed in Ohio who is determined by the OBN to have failed to comply with any of these rules based on the improper use of social media, texting, emailing, or any other form of communication is subject to disciplinary action by the OBN. The use of social media carries with it much responsibility. Please be aware of your responsibilities and professional obligations and how its use may impact you.” In addition to it being a condition of the license, it is in the Ohio Administrative Code - Rule 4723-4-06 | Standards of nursing practice promoting patient safety: (Q) For purposes of paragraphs (I), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of this rule, a nurse shall not use social media, texting, emailing, or other forms of communication with, or about a patient, for non-health care purposes or for purposes other than fulfilling the nurse's assigned job responsibilities. Given the national headlines this accident made, I think most will agree that her report can be reasonably used to identify the individual and tie it back to her now that her name is made public...in addition to being a violation of the social media policy for a nursing license. But let's move forward and let the Licensing Board debate and act on this one.

^This article also says her name... Now the nurses report can be tied back to a person...

Meanwhile Sea World is making money compared to other chains...

You mean a car should be designed to avoid exploding in the event it is rear-ended

I guess Steel Vengeance gets to keep the "world record" a little longer LOL.

Probably amounts to nothing we do not already know, but it is behind a paywall. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2021/08/22/kings-island-amusement-park-still-safe-numbers-say-yes/8209226002/

For all those saying they were waiting for FDA approval of the vaccine before getting the shot, the time has come....but I am sure most will now come up with another excuse... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/23/pfizer-covid-vaccine-fda-full-approval/5543473001/

Camp Cedar again?

And that is what makes it even more interesting that CP quickly said within hours of the accident that a part came off the train. And there is internet speculation that CP doesn't even have the part in their possession doesn't help either. Things can come off trains due to the stupidity of guests and it appears nobody knows for sure what hit her. I am sure CP wishes they could take back that initial statement...

Most people do what they need to do and disappear without calling attention to their good act. She has not and went to social media to talk about how great she is. The fact that she was a nurse and has gone to about every social media outlet to brag about what she did and posted details of the extent of the injuries crossed the line, as many medical professionals believe: https://www.midlevel.wtf/obnoxious-fnp-tells-ems-that-she-has-a-medical-degree-in-emergency-medicine-interferes-with-scene/?fbclid=IwAR2oYJHeXlXliSkWeyWMaBVMtVu3uwsH79ETxKwHFtM5jolWK1VaUAEw2ZE

So are typing this from school LOL. And you would be like one of the many students that we see on the news that tell their school board to quit listening to the parents bicker about masks as they aren't the ones sitting in school. From what I have seen, a large number of students would rather wear masks than have to go through all the quarantine, remote learning nonsense. Kids learned to deal with the masks last year and a large number of students say it isn't that big of a deal, especially if it keeps the school open. If the endgame is to not have to close schools, then masks should be mandatory in school. Even last year with mandatory masks, schools around the country were still forced to close and go remote. But now with the vaccine, hopefully the amount of closures with mandatory masks wouldn't be as great. Instead, unvaccinated kids are now in school without masks and the vaccinated are not wearing masks either and studies are showing the viral load in the vaccinated is just as high as the unvaccinated, so the kids are put into a worse petri dish than last year and we will see more closures this year than last year....

To add on to one of my earlier posts where I mentioned that there are lots of articles over the years addressing how the lack of federal oversight of amusement rides means that there is no reporting mechanism for the parks themselves or the ride manufacturers to report injuries or mechanical failures to any organization, so most keep quiet about the number of injuries that happen every year or provide any more details than necessary for any incident. They are in the business of attracting guests, not scaring them away, so of course they are going to downplay any incident. The official police report obtained by the media through an open records request to the city did not have the victims name on it, nor was it redacted, it was simply blank. Further, the phone number provided was called by the media and the person that answered said they were not at the park that day, has no connection to the victim, and knows nothing about the situation. I am not suggesting a cover-up; I am simply pointing out that this is the norm for amusement park accidents. Parks are tight-lipped and most information ends up coming out from the victim, their family, and eyewitness accounts in the media. So at this point, any information about the victim will likely have to come from the victim or the family. I would be shocked if CF attorneys haven't been working overtime to reach a settlement with a gag order.

As Arsenio Hall would say, "Strive to be Number 1"

Again, just because it doesn't violate HIPAA (maybe it does maybe it doesn't), doesn't mean it doesn't violate her nursing license requirements regarding social media posts... She could be disciplined and possibly lose her license over it for violating social media rules, even if HIPAA wasn't violated. So if you posted "The governor's wife came in today for therapy for an injury obtained while......and I performed......prognosis is good" Is that ok? You didn't post her name, ss, address, age, picture, etc. But circumstantially there is enough information there to identify who you treated. Or do you make that argument that it could have been any one of the many state's governors that have a wife LOL. Same with a freak accident on TTD. If this were an everyday occurrence, she probably wouldn't be scrutinized. But once a name enters the public domain, this report is easily connected to her. In case it got lost, I will repost what I mentioned earlier: From the Ohio Board of Nursing - These rules prohibit nurses licensed in Ohio from using social media, texting, emailing or any other form of communication to disseminate patient information for purposes other than patient care, or for otherwise fulfilling the nurse’s assigned job responsibilities: Principles for Social Networking 1. Nurses must not transmit or place online individually identifiable patient information. Nurses must know their legal and ethical responsibilities, as well as their own organization’s policies, regarding their responsibility to protect patient privacy, whether online or offline. Merely removing someone’s name (or face, in the instance of images) from a communication does not necessarily protect that person’s identity. Under federal law (HIPAA), protected “individually identifiable information” includes health information that identifies the individual or can reasonably be used to identify the individual, in any form (oral, written, or otherwise) that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health of an individual. "A nurse licensed in Ohio who is determined by the OBN to have failed to comply with any of these rules based on the improper use of social media, texting, emailing, or any other form of communication is subject to disciplinary action by the OBN. The use of social media carries with it much responsibility. Please be aware of your responsibilities and professional obligations and how its use may impact you.” In addition to it being a condition of the license, it is in the Ohio Administrative Code - Rule 4723-4-06 | Standards of nursing practice promoting patient safety: (Q) For purposes of paragraphs (I), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of this rule, a nurse shall not use social media, texting, emailing, or other forms of communication with, or about a patient, for non-health care purposes or for purposes other than fulfilling the nurse's assigned job responsibilities. Given the national headlines this accident made, I think most will argue that her report she posted to social media can be reasonably used to identify the individual and tie it back to her once the victim's name is made public...

And HIPAA provides guidance on how to go about publishing a case study. The case study has to be so generic in nature that someone cannot piece together who it is. "When case reports describe or discuss unique or rare circumstances, as they often do, it may be difficult or impossible to de-identify those cases such that there is no reasonable expectation that the individuals included can be identified, so patient authorization generally would be required." One could argue that this situation is rare and unique, thus making identification easier. Her name will get out in the public. Surprised it hasn't yet by a friend or family member. But at some point it will. "Sandusky Police Chief Jared Oliver said his department did not have an official report of the accident because the incident was handled by Cedar Point. “We were there to assist,” he said. “They handled the report.”"

Then she should have let her report get out in the public domain through the proper channels. According to your analysis, the bodycam video posted not even a day later "is actually a breath of fresh air that what she put into words on the Cedar Point incident report match what the bodycam video shows. Too often this does not happen.", so did she even need to put her career on the line? Let the video speak for itself. Now if you want to make an argument about her being a whistle blower and willing to put her license and career on the line to expose an issue, that is a different argument as well. You obviously disagree with medical professionals and the Ohio Nursing Board that posting patient information (even without names or photos, etc.) to social media that is reasonably able to be tied back to an individual is a license violation, so let's just move on from that argument and proceed with your idea that a cover-up or incompetence happened. Regarding that piece that flew off and a rumor that a guest took and kept it, people are sick and have weird quirks about keeping a piece of history - those of us old enough may remember people were keeping pieces of the space shuttle Challenger as souvenirs instead of turning them in for the investigation...and usually happens in high profile accidents as well. I am sure some people have evidence from the World Trade Center as well.

A nurse can violate their license code of conduct and lose their license, yet not be a HIPAA violation (or could be both). From the Ohio Board of Nursing - These rules prohibit nurses licensed in Ohio from using social media, texting, emailing or any other form of communication to disseminate patient information for purposes other than patient care, or for otherwise fulfilling the nurse’s assigned job responsibilities: Principles for Social Networking 1. Nurses must not transmit or place online individually identifiable patient information. Nurses must know their legal and ethical responsibilities, as well as their own organization’s policies, regarding their responsibility to protect patient privacy, whether online or offline. Merely removing someone’s name (or face, in the instance of images) from a communication does not necessarily protect that person’s identity. Under federal law (HIPAA), protected “individually identifiable information” includes health information that identifies the individual or can reasonably be used to identify the individual, in any form (oral, written, or otherwise) that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health of an individual. Given the national headlines this accident made, I think most will argue that her report can be reasonably used to identify the individual and tie it back to her once the victim's name is made public... And if the police report and bodycam was obtained via a public records request, was her form made available as part of complying with that request or was it able to be withheld due to HIPAA? Has anyone said her report entered public domain through official channels?

I guess if her license goes in front of the license board we will find out, but enough medical professionals seem to disagree with you... And again, if you take exception to how the victim was treated and feel that a cover up is in order, then make that argument from the lawfully and legally obtained evidence in the public domain. If everything she wrote is evident in the bodycam video, then attack it from that angle and you will get more traction... People are tired of going around and around with you on an oath/ethical/license violation and have left this conversation. Do you have a medical license or in a profession that requires a license with ethical/license requirements?

The report in and of itself isn't in question. It is how it got in the public domain that is in question and a concern. Not by a public records request. It got out there by a nurse posting it. That goes against their license requirements/oath/code of ethics. Medical professionals have lost their license for far less social media posts than that. Maybe they wanted her out of there the most because she was hindering their efforts. Rumor is she made claim she was an ER doctor. Many people on a scene of an accident overstate their qualifications. and no EMT is going to risk their job listening to someone that they cannot prove if they know what they are talking about. It looked like the other people were either park or city personnel or family/friends of the victim. Now if you want to argue about the response the victim received, that is a different argument. Attack it from that angle and quit trying to defend the nurse for violating her license requirements by posting that report and focus on what you take exception to based on the information legally and lawfully out in the public domain. That appears to be the beef you have and your intent and message is being lost. If you feel they were trying to cover up or had a poor response, then attack it from that angle because your message is being lost because of trying to defend the licensing/oath/code of ethics violation. I do not see people on this forum trying to negate her report because it puts the park in a bad light. That is a separate argument. The argument is that it appears almost every medical professional takes exception to her posting that report. Whether the response of CP and the City was appropriate or not is a different argument. I am sure that if this were to go to trial (which it won't they will settle), CF's attorney will certainly use all of this nurse's violation of her license to get any and all of her testimony tossed out. Attorneys get evidence tossed all the time. By her posting this, she may have inadvertently helped CF win a negligence case if her testimony cannot be used in court. Her posting this report may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is a big deal distinction and violation to those that are in a field that requires a license and has requirements/oath/code of ethics with said license... In fact, check out the beating she is getting on a mid-level practitioner blog site by medical professionals condemning what she posted: https://www.midlevel.wtf/obnoxious-fnp-tells-ems-that-she-has-a-medical-degree-in-emergency-medicine-interferes-with-scene/?fbclid=IwAR2oYJHeXlXliSkWeyWMaBVMtVu3uwsH79ETxKwHFtM5jolWK1VaUAEw2ZE

I totally understand that and IF it was obtained through the proper channels, then yes it can be out there. The first article I read on it gave the impression that someone leaked it. But if it was lawfully and legal obtained, ok then one less thing for people to argue about being out in the public domain. Back to the nurses report...

That part is not in question - it is her posting her report online with medical jargon and injuries of the patient that the licensing board would take exception to if someone files a complaint, and to what appears those in the medical profession here are saying goes against their licensing requirements and oath they take. Two different issues.

The Good Samaritan Law doesn't apply to her nursing license and oath she took that can be revoked for what she posted...it protects us from being sued for trying to help, but doesn't give a medical professional a free pass of tossing their license requirements out the window just because they were rendering medical aid in their off-duty time. Some professions are held to a higher standard. We do not know all of the situation as we were not there and we only saw part of it from a bodycam. Maybe before that officer arrived, EMS already pulled the c-spine and in assessing her injuries determined it could be more harmful than good and set it aside. Medical journals have stated that "c-collars increase intracranial pressure: It’s been clearly demonstrated that even proper application of a rigid C-collar can increase intracranial pressure. This is particularly problematic because many patients with spinal injuries also have head injuries where an increase in intracranial pressure can be devastating. The principle behind this is simple. C-collars are often tight enough on the neck to restrict venous drainage of the head through the jugular veins. They’re not tight enough to restrict arterial inflow through the carotid and the vertebral arteries." Given what was said in that report, a medical professional could determine that the head trauma was the worse of the two scenarios and that is what needed addressed. Plus they are dealing with how do you maneuver body board, stretcher, whatever else through a tightly confined queue? Do they get the jaws of life out to start cutting queue lines? How long does that take and is the injury bad enough that they cannot wait? Do they have that close by? Or do they make the call to stabilize her spine the best they can given the constraints they have and the time sensitivity of the injury to get her to a hospital ASAP. We do not know. We were not there. Maybe before the officer arrived she was conscience and alert and moving extremities that they felt the spine was intact. We do not know.

At the heart of the issue is who wrote the report. If she were a stay-home mommy that had no medical background or license and wrote what she saw, even if written verbatim to what was posted, while one may question the human decency factor or morality or something, there really isn't an issue that would impact this stay-home mommy. Doesn't make it right to post it, but not a violation of someone's license. Once she made it known she was a nurse, and signed the form with her nurse credentials, this form then changed meaning and posting it has ramifications. Even if she was off-duty, the oath, pledge, code of ethics, whatever it is called in the medical profession was broken once she made that known. That oath doesn't stop once quitting time occurs and they live with that oath and responsibility 24/7. What is even worse is, if it is true, that some said she was pronouncing herself as an ER doctor before anyone arrived. If she didn't put her credentials down on that report, she could make an argument to the licensing review board that she made that statement as a private citizen and not as a nurse. I don't think the licensing board would accept that excuse, but it would have been her only defense. The fact that she has been removing all her posts indicates she realizes she is in trouble. But too many people have screenshots of it. And yes that leaked bodycam footage is just as bad and probably violated some oath, code of ethics, or something within that profession and that will probably be investigated as well. I do not know that software, but one has to wonder if the officer's name at the bottom left was who was reviewing it and leaked it or allowed someone to watch it and record it. EDIT: If the bodycam footage was obtained lawfully and legally under a public records request as some claim (haven't seen a report confirming that), then it is "acceptable" to be out in the public domain.

Waiting on FDA approval is just another excuse to not get the vaccine because many items over the years have got FDA approval and years later were either retracted or given a black box label after it got out to the masses and in numbers larger than the clinical trials and they got to see the effects... So most people that claim they are waiting on FDA approval, once obtained, will then pull the "well normally it takes years to gain approval so I am going to wait and see the long term effects" excuse or cite that in 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which allows the FDA to collect fees from companies to expedite the drug-approval process, so how do we know if it is safe or driven by money.... Using that analogy, that is like saying it is safe to smoke since the "FDA regulates the manufacture, import, packaging, labeling, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution of cigarettes, including components, parts, and accessories"? But don't worry, the FDA also says "If you have experienced an unexpected health or safety issue with a specific tobacco product, you can report your adverse experience to FDA. Knowledge about adverse experiences can help FDA identify health or safety issues." One takes the vaccine because they trust the science and overall historical success of vaccines, or they don't and give excuse after excuse why they are not going to get it...