Continuing Education

To Assist or Not / ist:

Good Samaritan Considerations
for Nurse Practitioners
William O. Howie, DNP, CRNA,
Benjamin A. Howie, BA,
and Patricia C. McMullen, PhD, JD
ABSTRACT
Nurse practitioners and other health care providen may face situations where they
are confronted w i t h an emergency. Such occurrences are not limited to the hospital
setting; they can happen anywhere. This article consists o f a review o f selected Good
Samaritan cases, an overview o f state laws i n this regard, and a brief discussion o f
how other countries have dealt w i t h Good Samaritan situations. Appropriate nurse
practitioner considerations m this regard are suggested.
K e y w o r d s : civil liabilit)' for rendering emergency care, Good Samaritan, Good
Samaritan laws, medical emergency, nurse practitioner
2012 American College of Nurse Practitioners

William O. Howie, DNP, CRNA,

is a staff anesthetist at R.Adams

Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore, MD, and can be

reached at whowie@verizon.net. Benjamin A. Howie, BA, is a research assistant. Patricia C. McMullen, PhD,JD,

CRNP, is

dean and ordinary professor at the Catholic University ojAmerica School ofhhnsing and an attorney at law. In compliance with
national ethical guidelines, the authors report no relationships with business or industry that would pose a conflict of interest.

urse practitioners (NPs) and other health

airhne flights, where the number o f in-flight medical

care providers may face situations where

emergencies rose from 19 to 35 per million passengers

they either volunteer to assist someone i n

between 2000 and 2006.' Consequently, NPs and others

need during an emergency or other situation or they are

who w o r k i n health care wonder about protections that

called to do so. Such cases are not limited to the hospital

may be offered when they do render emergency care and

setting; they can occur during a little league game, the

i f potential Uability exists under these circumstances.

scene o f an automobile accident, a food tasting, or a rock

concert. These events have even arisen on commercial

This article considers the historical basis for protections

that may exist for NPs and other health care providers w h o

This CE learning activity is designed to augment the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of nurse practitioners and assist in tlieir understanding of their iisbility while providing Good Samaritan
care.
At the conclusion of this activity, the participant will be able to:
A. List basics of common and Napoleonic law related to Good Samaritan care
B. Identify conditions that must be met to be afforded Good Samaritan protection
C. Evaluate how to minimize liability if NPs provide Good Samaritan care
The authors, reviewers, editors, nurse planners, and pilot testers ail report no financial relationships that would pose a conflict of interest.
The authors do not present any off-label or non-FOA-approved recommendations for treatment.
There is no implied endorsement by NPA or ANCC of any commercial products mentioned in the article.
Readers may receive the 1.0 CE credit free by reading the article and answering each question online at www.npjoumal.org, or they may mail the test answers and evaluation, along with a
processing fee check for SIO made out to Elsevier, to PO Box 540, Ellicott City, MD 2)041-0540. Reguired minimum passing score is 70%.
This educational activity is provided by Nurse Practitioner Alternatives
NPA"^" is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.

688

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

Volume 8, Issue 9, October 2012

render assistance, as well as cases where health care providers

come to another's aid.^ Termed "Good Samaritan laws,"

have given care to people who were not their patients.

these statutes were rooted in the Bible, in the book o f Luke

Good Samaritan statutes enacted by various states will be

10:29-27, where a man traveling from Jericho was stripped

noted, as well. Important practical suggestions for protecting

of his clothes and possessions, beaten, and left by the road-

Good Samaritan NPs wiU be addressed.

side to die. Other passersby ignored the man's plight, but a

!HI:GtNBiSOFG:.^ .

without any reward.* Other religious traditions have siiTular

Samaritan cared for him and paid for his shelter at an inn,

'

'

parables. Indeed, the Qu'ran has a number o f passages that

iMost cases dealing with claims that a provider should be
held liable (responsible) for damages to another person are
grounded in the legal tort o f negligence. In order to estab-

similarly urge individuals to help those in need.^

In 1959, California passed the first law aimed at providing immunity to those who rendered "good faith medical

lish a prima facie case o f negligence, the person filing the

treatment to those who would not receive it."'' Since that

lawsuit (the plaintiff) must provide evidence that establishes

time, all states have enacted types o f Good Samaritan laws. A

the presence o f 4 main elements;

review o f these state statutes and cases dealing widr Good

Samaritan providers demonstrates a great deal o f variability

1. A duty or a legal relationship between the injiu'ed

from state to state as to which matters are covered and what

plaintiff and the defendant provider

2. Breach o f duty, evddence that the provider did not act

t)'pes o f assistance may be given by a health care provider.

Similarly, courts throughout the nation have ruled on Good

in a reasonable way under the circumstances

3. Causation, that the provider's actions or failure to act

Saniaritan cases, typically finding that those who care for

caused the injury to the plaintiff and that this was

another during an emergency receive special protections. As

foreseeable

the following case examples demonstrate. Good Samaritans

4. .Damages, that the plaintiff suffered some type o f harm

as a result o f the actions or inactions o f the defendant^

are sometimes sued, despite the positive motives associated

with their interventions.

As a general rule, tort law (civU law) in the United

States has supported the proposition that absent special cir-

CASE EXAMPLES: YOU ARE THE JURY

cumstances a person does not have a legal responsibility,

Case 1

termed a dury, to assist, rescue or protect another person

The case o f Boccasile v. Cajun Musk Limileifi provides an

from harm.-'''' As a consequence, US courts have been reluc-

example o f a Good Samaritan case. Briefly, Aline Carnpoux,

tant to hold someone either civilly Hable (for which the

R N , and Sara John, M D , were ser-ving as volunteer staff at a

typical compensation is naoney) or criminally responsible

first-aid station at the Cajun Music Festival in Rhode Island.

(for wliich fines or confinement may be ordered) i f they do

A n attendee named BoccasOe started to have an anaphylac-

not come to the aid o f someone w h o requires assistance.-'

tic reaction to the seafood gumbo he had eaten. W h e n John

While tlris is true i n most instances, there are some notable

and members o f the first-aid crew came to his aid, Boccasile

exceptions where a duty is created by law and assistance

repeatedly requested an injection. John ordered the

must be rendered. For example, in the case where someone

crewmembers to return to the first-aid station for an

is responsible for an accident, the individual who caused the

Epipen, wliich the physician then administered.

accident must provide help to those who are injured. Or, in

Shordy after the injection. Nurse Campoux also came

circumstances where someone begins to assist another and

to render assistance. W i t h i n minutes o f her arrival, Boccasile

other potential rescuers are "called off," a duvf may be

stated he felt worse and requested another epinephrine

found. Parents are responsible for rendering aid to their

injection, at which point he suffered cardiac arrest. John i n i -

minor children. Additionally, employers can be held liable

tiated C P R until an ambulance arrived. Boccasile never

for not assisting their employees when a work-related

regained consciousness and died the next day.^

mishap occurs.-'

His widow sued John and Champoux alleging they

Given the general rule that, absent special circumstances,

were negligent (unreasonable under the circumstances)

a person is not obligated to help another in need, first courts

because they failed to bring emergency equipment to the

and then lawmakers began to consider whether special

pixD-

scene imtiallyThe physician and nurse claimed they were

tecdons should be given to protect people o f goodwill w h o

immune from suit under Rhode Island's Good Samaritan

www.npjoumal.org

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

689

Statute, which provides immunity from liability in emer-

would probably fall asleep and have a lack o f appetite

gency situations where there is no remuneration (compen-

because he had been crying, and she further told them to

sation) and the actions of the provider are not grossly

see a physician i f any problems developed.

negligent. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against the

Other versions o f the germane events were presented,

providers, finding the plaintiff (Broccasile's widow) had not

including 1 by plamtifT [the McDaniel faiTuly] in w h i c h

produced enough evidence to show that John and

Keck was aware from early on that a wire had struck the

Champoirx deviated from reasonable standards o f care.

child's eye, the eye was red w h e n first observed, Keck

The PJaode Island Supreme Court upheld this decision,

told plaintifl-'to treat the eye w i t h ice, no mention was

but the question as to whether these health care profession-

made by Keck o f seeking further medical care, and Keck

als would have been protected solely under the state's Good

reassured plaintiff the next day that it was normal for the

Samaritan Act went unaddressed.That is, one was left to

eye to be red and swollen.""'

wonder whether unpaid volunteer providers rendering care

The next day, it was noted the boy's eye was red and

m Rhode Island are immune from liability for all reasonable

swollen, and he was referred to an ophthalmologist. The eye

actions w i t h the exception o f gross negligence.

became infected and eventually had to be removed. The

McDaniel family sued Keck for negligent (unreasonable)

Case 2

treatment. Keck moved to dismiss the case, contending that

Dr. John Stevens, a British psychiatrist, was traveling by

she was acting as a Good Samaritan, since the McDaniels'

commercial airline from California to his home in

son was not a student at Bronxville Elementary and she did

L o n d o n after a family vacation. D u r i n g the flight,

not have a duty to render any a.ssistance.The Supreme

another passenger experienced a pulmonary embolism

Court o f New York held that N e w York's Good Samaritan

and Stevens came to his aid. A t the conclusion o f the

Law was applicable to Keck; since her actions were not

flight, the airline presented h i m w i t h a bottle o f cham-

grossly negligent, and because she did not receive compen-

pagne and a $50 travel voucher as tokens o f appreciation.

sation, the suit should be dismissed.'"

Thereafter, Stevens sent the airline a bill for his services,

claiming the airline owed h i m for 4.5 times his hourly rate.

These 3 cases all highlight some important provisions

in the Good Samaritan laws and h o w states address pro-

The airline refiised to pay, and Stevens filed suit, but the case

tections given to NPs and others v/ho are serving in this

was settled when he discovered that he could have been

function. The following section provides a brief summary

liable for practicing medicine without a license, since he

o f US Good Samaritan laws and a helpful Web site that

rendered care while the plane was flying i n US territory

analyzes the laws o f each state. After this overview, some

and his Mcense to practice medicme was fixjm England.*'^

general suggestions for NPs w i l l be considered.

Ease 3

GOOD SAMAmmM

The McDaniel family served as caretakers o f the

Two main sources o f US law have their origins in the

Manhattan C o u n t r y School Farm, a site where school-

British and French legal systems. The first is common law,

children frequently went o n field trips. Students from

established as legal cases that are brought before a court and

Bronxville Elementary School traveled to the farm,

the court interprets the case according to prior cases and

accompanied by a school nurse, Nancy Keck, w h o was to

existing laws. During this process the existing laws may be

imm:

WHEUE 00 wt

mmm

be available to administer care and help w i t h any minor

refined by the judge hearing the case, and at times, the

health issues that arose.

judge's decision carves out new areas o f the law. C o m m o n

D u r i n g the field trip, the McDaniels' son was hit in

law is also referred to as "judge-made" law. C o m m o n law is

the right eye w i t h a wire i n the barn. As reflected in

firmly rooted in the United Kingdom, and the common

court records: "Keck became aware that the child had

law system is evident in countries that trace their history

injured his eye and, although he was not a Bronxville

back to England, including Scotland, Northern Ireland, and

student, she volunteered to l o o k at his eye. According to

Wales. Since the US sprang (com British rule, common law

Keck, the child stated that he had hit himself w i t h string

is applied quite firequently in US courts."

(not wire), she did not observe any redness or swelling,

she administered ice, she told the child's parents he
690

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

The other system o f law that is germane to the US legal

system is that o f Napoleonic Law, which traces its origin to
Volume 8, Issue 9, October 2012

the Authority o f the Emperor Napoleon, a system o f laws

tection afforded to heath care workers who volunteer to

that dictated conduct under his rule. This eventually estab-

assist in the care o f the injured during a natural disaster.

lished a French system o f laws that were codified i n 1804 as

Most Good Samaritan statutes are limited to providing

the "French CivU Code."''

some degree of legal

As was mentioned in the introduction to this article,

imi-nuniD,'

at an emergency scene.

However, most o f these laws are not coniprehensive

common law countries have a long liistory o f reluctance to

enough to cover situations where volunteer providers who

require that a passerby come to the assistance o f another

are acting during declared public health emergencies, car-

person, absent a pre-existing relationship (eg, parent/child,

ing for people not orAy at the inunediate scene o f an

health care provider/patient under care m a hospital,

emergency but also at later stages as conditions slowly

employer/employee). Conversely, Napoleonic laws have tra-

return to normal, such as volunteers w h o cared for citizens

ditionally created a "duts' to rescue" whereby civil or crimi-

during Hurricane Katrina.^ Over time, it is l i k e l y that

fed-

nal penalties are levied on any citizen who fails to assist

eral legislation will need to be enacted to protect Good

someone i n need,"

Samaritans during these disasters.

States have varying degrees o f both comnron law and

Napoleonic law principles. Some states mandate that healdi

AiwiCE TO NPs

care pro\iders render first aid in emergency situations; other

Given the somewhat overwhehning variety o f state laws and

states require that pro\'iders avoid "willfirl and wanton" con-

court rulings that pertain to Good Samaritans, NPs m a y b e

duct, what is typically termed gross negligence; and most states

more than a bit reluctant to serve as a volunteer during a

have restricted Good Samaritan protections only to

community event, come to the rescue o f someone injured

providers who do not take any form o f compensation for

in an accident, or intervene when a fellow passenger experi-

the care they deliver Forainately, there is a recent outstand-

ences an emergency during an airline flight. However, the

ing law review article that has summarized state Good

nursing profes.sion's long tradition o f care to others and the

Samaritan laws:' - Sutton analyzed the laws in all 50 states

ethical obligations that nurses assume are powerfiil motiva-

and rated them on a 1 to 5 scale, w i t h Level 1 prodding the

tors to render care to others during emergencies.

least liability protection to Good Samaritans and Level 5

Consequently, some practical suggestions are i n order:

providing the greatest degree o f provider protection. In most

1. Some states place an affirmative duty on NPs w h o

instances, some degree o f immunity- from eidier criiiiinal or

Vititness

an accident to provide basic rescue care.

civU penalties was granted to rescuers w h o were acting i n an

Other states have no such requirement. Because

emergency, avoided acting in a grossly negligent (willful and

states vary widely on what they require from i n d i -

wanton) way, and did not take any compensation.

viduals that render a,ssistance i n an emergency, it's

State provisions that compel individuals to render aid dur-

important to know the requirements i n a state n-i

ing emergency simations, as occurs in countries hea\aly

which you practice or reside, and the aforemen-

rooted in the Napoleonic Code, warrant particular mention.

tioned Web site is a good place to start. NPs should

For example, in Vermont an individual can be fined up to

contact their state attorney general's office or their

$100 for not offering emergency assistance.'-^ Minnesota

state board o f nursing to determine their liability

laws mandate diat"a person at the scene o f an emergency

under state laws. I f the advice given is not in w r i t -

who kno^\fs that another person is exposed to or has suf-

ing, it is helpful for the N P to write d o w n the

fered grave physical harm shall...give reasonable assistance

name o f the individual w h o gave the advice i n the

to the exposed person."'''

event he or she is ever sued for care rendered.

Fortunately, for NPs and others who want up-to-date

2. A n N P w h o is either obligated to give emergency

information on a particular state's Good Samaritan laws,

assistance or who volunteers to undertake this

HeartSafe America created an excellent site at

responsibihty shoidd hmit care to those functions

www.heartsafeam.com/pages/faq_good_samaritan. This site

that are i n the scope o f his or her nurse practice

provides information not only on state laws but also a gen-

act, education, training, and experience. I f the N P

eral overview o f the principles behind these statutes.

has not been adequately trained to perform a tra-

Recent natural disasters and terrorist attacks in the US

have given rise to the question o f whether there is any prowww.npjoumal.org

cheostomy, it is not a good idea to try to adininister 1 at the scene o f an accident. Rather, trying to
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

691

maintain an airway and instituting C P R , i f needed,

COWCLUSIOi

are the better course o f action.

T h e U S is not the only country that has had to deal

3. Once the NP/provider begins rescue efforts, they

w i t h legislation aimed at protecting those w h o assist a

must be contmued until such time as the provider

v i c t i m d u r i n g a medical emergency. A number o f

becomes exhausted (and therefore unable to con-

countries have enacted national legislation to estabhsh

tinue) or until other qualified individuals (eg, para-

a single pohcy for such circumstances. I n fact,

medics, physicians) assume the care o f the victim.

AustraUa, B e l g i u m , Finland, France, Germany, Italy,

4. NPs and other rescuers should never take compensation for the care they render at the scene o f an

Portugal, and Spain have criminal penalties for failing

to come to the aid o f another person.'^

emergency. G o o d Samaritan laws were enacted to

Clearly, what is lacking in the United States is a u m -

protect those w h o voluntarily assist. Accepting

fied federal statute to minimize variations i n expectations

compensation impacts on the "voluntariness" o f the

o f Good Samaritans from state to state. This lack is likely

care and may result i n loss o f protection. That is,

attributable to constitutional provisions that charge i n d i -

rather than a victim having to establish that the

vidual states w i t h protecting the health, safety, and well-

care given was grossly negligent (intentionally

being o f their citizens. Nurses should consider active

harmful, willful and wanton), he or she may have a

lobbying eftbrts to help change the current ambiguous

lower burden o f just proving the actions v/ere

Good Samaritan statues. A clearer deUneation o f expecta-

unreasonable under the circumstances.

tions o f and protections for Good Samaritan emergency

5. Most providers who give care at an emergency scene

responders may lead to less hesitation among health care

are heroes, and fear o f being sued is not their primary

providers to render care and potentially reduce morbidity

consideration. Their selfless service can have a tremen-

and mortality. !3te3

dous impact on whether someone lives or dies, as well

as long-term prognosis. A review o f current literature
did not reveal research indicating that NPs may be

RafsfMcai
1.

http://vvw.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-03-11-inflight-meciicale m e r g e n c i e s 7 _ N . h t m . A c c e s s e d (Vlay 1, 2012.

reluctant to serve as Good Samaritans. However, some

NPs may be rightfully concerned about providing aid

2.

Prosser W L . Law of Tons 14th edj. St Paul: West; 1971.

3.

S c h w a r t z V E , Appel C E . Rest}aping
Duties Under

m an emergency situation. The case o f Van Horn v. Torti

IS an exaiTiple where a well-meaning person came to

Davis R, D e B a r r o s A. In the air, health e m e r g e n c i e s rise quietly.

the Traditional

the Third Restatement

Limits of Affirmative

of Tons. 44 J o h n f^arshall L. Rev. 379

(2011).
4.

A m e r i c a n L a w Institute. I^estatement

of Law, Second,

Tons, 319, 323.

Philadelphia; A m e r i c a n L a w Institute, 1977.

the assistance o f another and did not receive protec-

5.

litigation, Lisa Torti had "yanked" her firiend Alexandra

R o s e n b a u m S , Harty M B , S h e e r J . State l a w s extending c o m p r e h e n s i v e

legal liability protections for professional health-care volunteers dtjring

tion under a state's Good Samaritan Statute.'^ In this

public health e m e r g e n c i e s . Public Health Rep. 2008;123(2):238-241.

6.

Gutam H., Devereaux J . A brief primer on G o o d S a m a r i t a n L a w for health

care professionals. A u s t Health Rev. 2007;31(3):478-482.

Van H o r n from an auto after an accident. Van H o r n

7.

D e G u e r r e C . G o o d S a m a r i t a n statutes: a r e medical volunteers protected?

was rendered a paraplegic and sued Torti for negli-

8.

Boccasile

gence. The Supreme Court o f California found that

9.

Dyer C . Doctor d e m a n d s payment for helping airline p a s s e n g e r . Br Med J.

Torti was not immune from liability under California's

10. McDaniel

Good Samaritan law, which they determined provided

protection only to emergency medical personnel.

Vinual Mentor

2004;6(4):1-5, 2.

v. Cajun Music

Limited, 694 A.2d 686 (S.Ct. R l , 1997).

1998;317:701.
v. Keck, 861 N Y S 2 d 516 (NY S . C t . J u l y 17, 2008), 517-519.

11. D A N Legal Network. T h e G o d S a m a r i t a n law a c r o s s E u r o p e . http://www.

daneurope.org/c/document,jibrarY/get_flle?uuid=c09228f3-a745-480b-9549d9fc8bbbd535&groupld=10103%E2%80%9D.
12. Sutton V. Is there a doctor (and a lawyer) in the h o u s e ? W h y our G o o d

5. Given the ambiguity o f current G o o d Samaritan

S a m a r i t a n laws are doing more h a r m than good for a national public health
security strategy: a fifty-state s u r v e y . J Health Biomed

statutes as they relate to volunteering for public

health emergencies, such as 9 / 1 1 and Hurricane
Katrina, providers w h o want to volunteer i n

Law. 2010;261.

https://titigation-essentials.lexisnexis.CO m / w e b c d / a p p ? a c t i o n = D o c u m e n t
D i s p i a v & c r a w l i d - 1 8 ( d o c t v p e ^ c i t e & d o c i d = 6 - f J.-*-Health t%26-i-Biomed.+ L.
-t-261&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=372a8dbe103471b7ad18ee812643256
8. A c c e s s e d August 13, 2012.
13. Vermont Stat. A n n . Tit 12, 519 (2010).

times o f disaster w i l l do so w i t h an uncertain

level o f protection. National N P organizations,

14. M i n n e s o t a Stat I604A.01 (2010).

15. Van Horn v. Watson et a/. 197P,ed 164 ( S . Ct. C A 2008).

physician professional associations, and other

health care professional groups should unite to
advocate for the passage o f a u n i f o r m federal

1555-4155/$ s e e front matter

2012 A m e r i c a n College of Nurse Practitioners
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.nurpra.2012.07.002

G o o d Samaritan statute.
692

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

Volume 8, Issue 9, October 2012

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners Continuing Education Credit Application

Title: Good Samaritan Laws # Contact Hours: 1.0
CE Code: TJNP102012 Valid until 11-2014 Pharmacology Credit: 0
Circle the best answer for each question. Required minimum passing score is 70%.

1. Select the best answer about Good Samaritan laws:

a. Virtually all states require a health care provider to render
care to a victim who is in obvious distress from a medical or trauma-related emergency
b. The only time a health care provider has to give emergency care to a victim in distress is if he or she contributed to or caused the injury
c. There is a state-to-state variability of expectations/
responsibilities for providers to stop and render care
d. Health care providers who stop to render emergency
care are never held liable under provisions of the Good
Samaritan law
2. In the case of Boccasile v. Cajun Music Limited, the
physician and nurse were:
a. Held liable because the victim died when they did not
provide care to him in a timely manner
b. Not held liable because the victim ate a food to which
he was allergic
c. Held liable because they did not immediately bring an
injection of epinephrine to the scene
d. Granted immunity under Rhode Island law because
they were not compensated and not grossly negligent
3. Which statement best applies to a British psychiatrist
who gave in-flight emergency care?
a. He was not held liable because his care was not grossly
negligent
b. He was liable for the care he rendered. The international
situation afforded no Good Samaritan protection
c. Once he billed for the services, he may have relinquished Good Samaritan immunity protection
d. He was liable because he was a psychiatrist practicing
out of the scope of his normal practice

www.npjoumal.org

4. In the U S , most states provide some degree of

immunity for Good Samaritans who:
a. Were acting in an emergency
b. Did not act in a grossly negligent manner
c. Did not get compensation for care
d. Ail of the above
5. In general, a person doesn't have a legal responsibility
to rescue or protect another person unless:
a. He contributed to or caused the emergency
b. He started to provide assistance but changed his mind
and left the scene
c. He called off others who could have rendered assistance
d. All of the above
6. Currently, what protection is afforded heath care
workers who volunteer during a natural disaster
or a broad scale terrorist attacit?
a. Since 9/11, the federal government enacted global
Good Samaritan coverage for all who provide assistance
during declared public emergencies
b. Congress is now enacting a universal Good Samaritan
law to cover providers w h o volunteer their services
during times like this
c. Federal legislation will need to be enacted to cover
Good Samaritans during such events
d. Federal legislators have concluded state statutes
sufficiently cover Good Samaritans in these cases
7. Which statement regarding nurse practitioner (NP)
immunity in Good Samaritan situations is most
accurate?
a. Knowledge of individual state laws is vital
b. NPs will not be held liable if they provide care during
an emergency situation
c. NPs may charge reasonable fees for the care they
render during an emergency situation
d. Only physicians are absolved from liability in Good
Samaritan situations

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

693

EVALUATION OF THE CE ACTIVITY

Purpose and Target Audience: T h i s CE l e a r n i n g activity Is d e s i g n e d t o augnnent t h e k n o w l e d g e , skills, a n d a t t i t u d e s of nurse
practitioners a n d assist in t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e i r liability w h i l e p r o v i d i n g G o o d S a m a r i t a n care.

1. Listed below are the educational activity objectives. Please rate the extent to which you are now able to
meet each of the objectives or your level of agreement with the statements (with 1 as the lowest or "no";
5 as the highest or " y e s " ranking):
Low

High

a. List basics of connmon and Napoleonic law related to Good Samaritan care

b. Identify conditions that must be nnet to be afforded Good Samaritan protection

c.

Evaluate how to minimize liability if N P s provide Good Samaritan care

High

Low
2 . The teaching method was appropriate and effective for the content presented

3. The information presented was accurate, current, and at an appropriate level

4. This activity nnet nny personal professional expectations
5. This content was relevant to my practice as an NP
6. This content will cause me to change my practice as an NP
7. 1 believe 1 will face barriers in my practice to implennenting this information
8. Overall, 1 would rate this activity
9. Minutes required to read the article and complete the questions

1
1
1
1
1

T o r e c e i v e CE c r e d i t s , r e a d t h e a r t i c l e , a n s w e r e a c h q u e s t i o n , a n d m a i l t h e t e s t a n s w e r s a n d e v a l u a t i o n a l o n g w i t h
y o u r p r o c e s s i n g f e e c h e c k f o r $ 1 0 m a d e o u t t o E l s e v i e r , P O B o x 5 4 0 , E l l i c o t t C i t y , M D 2 1 0 4 1 - 0 5 4 0 . CE is p r o v i d e d
w i t h o u t c h a r g e t o p r e m i e r s u b s c r i b e r s r e g i s t e r e d at www.npjoumal.org
a n d t o A C N P m e m b e r s at
ACNPWeb.net

who take the activity online.

Please

Print

Clearly

Name:

Date CE activity completed:

Address for mailing certificate:

Phone number:

E-mail:
This educational activity is provided by Nurse Practitioner Alternatives

Nurse Practitioner Alternatives is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the

American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.
Accreditation of this activity does not imply endorsement by the provider, ANCC, or Elsevier of any commercial products
mentioned in conjunction with this activity. For questions, contact info@npedu.com.
COMMENTS:

694

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP

Volume 8, Issue 9, October 2012