It could be that I am, because it all worked out fine, and I'm not really even cross about it, but I just have this niggle that says it wasn't a choice they should have made....
Situation (certain details changed in a probably futile attempt to make this a bit less identifiable for the individuals concerned). Teenager on a school trip in a hot county. 12 teens, 3 staff members. One child suffers a minor injury - it is pretty much shrugged off (fair enough) for 13 hours, until child's entire limb swells, changes colour and is hot to the touch. And extremely painful. Child still feels well, just in pain.
A visit is made to local medical clinic. Doctor takes one look at leg and without doing any further investigation says they would like to admit child to hospital for IV antibiotics. Staff member declines and asks for oral antibiotics instead. Dr asks staff member to bring child back the following day.
On leaving staff member tells child she didn't want her to go into hospital as she "didn't want to spend the next 2 days sat there with her". And that they wouldn't go back for a checkup the next day, but might go on the day after. It is important to note staff member IS a qualified nurse.
Now, as it happens it was fine, but I am just really uneasy about the decision making, even though the result worked out OK. Clearly the Dr was worried about sepsis, and I just feel it wasn't really the staff members call to make. She should either have taken the Drs advice or consulted the child's parents to ask for permission to ignore the Drs advice. Even though in the end it all worked out OK, I do wonder if some sort of discussion should be had about this sort of decision making process.
Is my unease unreasonable?