Nurse testifies she caught mislabeled drops, describes training gaps and staffing concerns at Waterbury Hospital during disciplinary hearing

At an administrative disciplinary hearing, respondent Miss Dodwell testified that she had not experienced a medication error prior to the incident under review and described a prior occasion when she discovered a mislabeled vial of drops and corrected the filing before administration.

The testimony, given during a hearing that included discussion of scheduling and quorum issues, matters because the proceedings concern a prior morphine administration and the board is weighing evidence about the respondent’s training, clinical judgment and medication‑administration practices.

Miss Dodwell told the hearing panel she once found ear drops filed in a box labeled for eye drops. She described the steps she said she took: "I pulled out the patient's drops. I then proceeded to look at the patient's MAR... I noticed on the bottle that it was not the same medication labeling on the box itself. So, by looking at the MAR and matching up the actual medication drops for which route it should be given... I gave the specific drops from the actual bottle according to the MAR to the patient," and then refiled the vial in the correct drawer so a future staff member would not repeat the mistake.

She also described her experience programming total parenteral nutrition (TPN) pumps while working on an oncology unit, saying the work required entering multiple cycle rates and performing the programming correctly "multiple times." That testimony was offered in response to questions about her ability to read and implement titration instructions.

On training, Miss Dodwell said her initial orientation at Waterbury Hospital included an additional day because her assigned trainer did not appear. She said she requested the extra orientation and that the supplemental session was provided by the educator. "They did give me another day," she testified.

The respondent said there were occasions when she refused to accept an additional patient because she believed she could not safely care for more patients, and she said she would raise concerns when staffing or patient acuity exceeded safe limits.

Describing one event when she asked for help, Miss Dodwell said a patient who had undergone anesthesia became agitated and damaged the room. She said she contacted the physician twice to request assessment because the patient remained unusually lethargic and then later combative. "I then went to the room, and I noticed that the patient had threw their tray ... the room was pretty much destroyed. So I reached out to the doctor for them to come and see and assess the patient," she said. According to her testimony, the physician later ordered a one‑to‑one attendant, but she said she had to call the nursing supervisor and request security when the physician’s response was not immediate.

Panel members and counsel also discussed hearing logistics during the session. Board counsel advised that if the panel lost quorum it could continue receiving evidence and complete fact‑finding at a subsequent meeting after members review the transcript and evidence. The chair announced a recess for approximately 30 minutes with a planned reconvene time of 2:00 p.m.; the chair also noted the meeting generally must end by 4:30 p.m.

Department counsel informed the panel that a scheduled department witness who would have testified about "department exhibit 5" had a scheduling conflict and would not be available after 2:00 p.m. Counsel for the department said the agency was "confident enough with the case to move forward without this person's testimony," but both sides reserved the option to address how to handle that exhibit later in the hearing or on a subsequent day.

The hearing recessed for lunch and planned to resume at approximately 2:00 p.m. The panel and counsel agreed to continue testimony from Miss Dodwell on reconvening and to rely on the transcript and exhibits for any fact‑finding if quorum was not maintained.

The record shows no final board decision or formal vote on the allegations during the portion of the hearing in this transcript excerpt.

Looking ahead, department counsel and respondent’s counsel signaled they might revisit exhibit 5 and the unavailable witness before resting their cases, but no new hearing date or formal continuance was announced in the excerpt.