NSG2HEL Healthcare Ethics and Law Assessment 3 2026: Analysis of Legal and Professional Issues in a Medication Error or Patient Fall Case, Singapore

NSG2HEL Assessment 3 asks nursing students to look at a clinical scenario the way a regulator, a court or a coroner would. You choose one of two case studies, identify the legal and professional issues, and analyse them against Singapore law and the Singapore Nursing Board (SNB) Code for Nurses and Midwives. Ethics was assessed in Assessment 2, so this task stays on the legal and professional side.

The Task

Accountable practice means being able to explain, on the law and on your professional standards, why you did what you did. Analyse the legal and professional issues that arise in one of the two scenarios below. Through the use of relevant literature and resources, demonstrate that you have engaged in a critical analysis of the legal and professional issues you have identified.

Assessment Requirements

1. Identification of legal and professional issues (10 marks): identify the legal and professional issues in your chosen scenario and articulate the rationale for each issue you identify.
2. Analysis of legal and professional issues (20 marks): undertake a critical analysis of the scenario and discuss the most relevant legal and professional concepts in relation to it, using appropriate literature, legislation, case law and professional standards.
3. Structure and organisation (5 marks): include an introduction, body and conclusion with appropriate sections. The essay is expected to be well structured, with coherent and logical presentation of key ideas.
4. Written expression, presentation and referencing (8 marks): present the essay with minimal spelling, grammatical and typographical errors, effective use of literature with appropriate paraphrasing, and APA 7th edition referencing.

Jurisdiction (7 marks)

Analyse the scenario under Singapore law and against the SNB Code for Nurses and Midwives (2 April 2018). Where Australian or Victorian law offers a useful contrast, you may include it, but it must be clearly labelled as comparative and must not stand in place of the Singapore position.

Scope

The focus of this assessment is legal and professional, not ethical. The scenarios raise ethical questions as well, but confine your discussion to the legal and professional dimension.

Suggested Approach

• Include a correctly filled-out title page.
• Choose only one of the two scenarios below.
• Provide a brief introduction and conclusion; sub-headings may be used.
• Use a minimum of ten credible sources, including relevant legislation, case law, SNB standards and peer-reviewed literature.
• Apply your analysis to the particular facts of the scenario rather than discussing the law in the abstract.
• Approximate time on task: 22 to 28 hours.

Case Study A

Background

Pauline has just graduated from her nursing course and recently secured a position in a large public hospital in a new graduate program. She is a mother to a 3-year-old boy and a 6-month-old girl. Her husband also works shift work so that they can share childcare responsibilities, but they are both exhausted. Pauline is working her first night duty rotation. She has recently worked several double shifts, as the hospital has been short-staffed and she is trying to pay off her student loans.

Scenario

On a particularly busy night, Pauline accidentally administers a second dose of an anti-hypertensive medication to one of her elderly patients, Olive, who has mild dementia. The error occurred because Pauline did not check whether the drug had already been signed as given on the medication chart. She reviews Olive’s medical history and notes that her blood pressure is usually quite high.

Pauline then decides not to inform anyone about the error, as she is concerned that it might reflect poor performance in her new role. She does not inform Olive, as she feels it might make Olive anxious. However, Pauline is worried Olive may get dizzy from the second dose, so she goes to Olive and states firmly that she must stay in bed for the next 6 hours.

Case Study B

Background

Mr George is a 69-year-old male patient with minimal English-speaking abilities. He was admitted to hospital following a mechanical fall in which he fractured his left hip. He had surgery and was recovering well on the ward. Mr George has a history of Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and urinary incontinence.

Scenario

Due to urinary incontinence, Mr George buzzed every hour and requested to go to the toilet. Nurse Jaimie helped him without any assisting devices, although she had been told during handover that a gutter frame should be used when mobilising him. Jaimie stated that it was not the first time she had cared for Mr George and that she knew what she was doing.

After assisting Mr George four times, Jaimie became impatient. At the same time, she needed to care for another patient who was in pain and had requested analgesia. She decided to put Mr George in an incontinence pad against his wishes. While doing so, she disconnected the buzzer to give everyone a break and suggested Mr George remain in bed.

Mr George was uncomfortable in the pad and pressed the buzzer a few times, but no one came to assist him, as it had been disconnected. He decided to go to the toilet alone, fell, and broke his left femur on the way to the bathroom.

Marking Rubric Summary

• Identification of legal and professional issues: 10 marks
• Analysis against legislation, case law and professional standards, applied to the facts: 20 marks
• Jurisdictional accuracy (Singapore law and SNB standards as the governing framework; comparative material clearly labelled): 7 marks
• Structure and organisation: 5 marks
• Quality of submission (expression, presentation and APA referencing): 8 marks