Case Study: Ethical Issues in Professional Nursing Practice
Abstract
Ethical issues in professional nursing practice are mostly associated with patients. The paper discusses how Standard Healthcare Facility was sued to the court by a patient claiming his rights to informed consent, and the organization violated a patient’s anatomy. Shared Decision Making was found essential in solving the problem.
Keywords: Shared Decision Making, patient autonomy, informed consent, and Malaysian primary healthcare clinic.
Case study: Ethical Issues in Professional Nursing Practice.
Healthcare providers, families and patients encounter ethical decisions every day. Respecting a person’s informed consent is essential in bioethics, some physicians practice treatment without accessing learned consent doctrine (Bester et al., 2016). Informed consent is enhanced when the patients reach medication agreement after all the inquiries have been answered by health providers concerning their treatment. Patient autonomy outlines that victims have the right to decide on their treatment without their conclusion on medication influenced by the health practitioners.
. Ethical issues in professional nursing practice are directly related to patients’ involvement in decision making during treatment. The paper describes the Standard Healthcare Facility scenario associated with an ethical issue involving patient autonomy and informed consent to treatment.
Case presentation
Recently, many cases have arisen in Standard Healthcare Facility regarding the exclusion of patients in the decision-making process during medication. Such issues include a patient who sued the Standard Healthcare Facility over the allegation of violating his right to autonomy and informed contest. Respecting patients’ autonomy entails an acknowledgment of their rights in deciding on their treatment, even if it contradicts a physician’s proposal. The issue was observed for a long time until the organization called for intervention. The organization has been striving to deliver quality healthcare by promoting patients’ rights to informed consent and autonomy. However, the organization’s objective has been influenced by the patient who sued the organization to the court. The patient claimed that his right to informed consent and self-determination of treatment were violated by the organisation by . Such a tendency in decision making indicates the existence of the problem in the way the health practitioners engage with the clients during medication.
Background
Balancing of benefits and risks in treatment needs the involvement of patients in making decisions concerning their treatment (Xu & Wells, 2016). Therefore before any treatment begins, patients have the right to express their consent to health practitioners and also the right to be informed about their medication. The issue of excluding patients in decision making has paralyzed the inflows of people within the facility. As per the case study, poor health practices can be articulated to the exclusion of patients in the decision making process during medication. The physician’s judgments should not override patients’ preferences as clients have the right to reject or accept the nurses’ recommendations freely. The problem has advanced in the organization because there is poor coordination of health practitioners and patients in decision making concerning treatment.
The decision-making process in the organization has mostly depended on researchers. Abuabah et al. (2019) researched a study to determine how ethical issues influenced health practitioners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, tertiary care hospitals. The response of 80% was recorded among 240 questionnaires distributed to the clinicians, 77% requested for guidance in decision making, physicians who were equipped by bioethics teachings were 69% (138) and clinicians who felt that they over treat patient were 54% (Abuabah et al., 2019). It was also found that 72% of the physicians thought that patients could reflect their condition from what they had been taught, and 82% of the health practitioners considered not disclosing alternative treatment to patients (Abuabah et al., 2019). Such a fact shows why a similar trend was realized in Standard Healthcare Facility. Clinicians have a role in preventing any harm experienced when patients have information override or are emotionally overwhelmed
The issue escalated due to the lengthy time taken by the Standard Care Facility to identify the gap in service delivery of health providers, excluding the patients in decision making during treatment. Thus, the organization is facing a continuing challenge of delivering quality healthcare as patients’ autonomy and informed consent are being neglected. The problem can be reversed by the implementation of changes that enhance the inclusion of patients in the decision-making process.
According to Raveesh et al. (2016), healthcare practitioners should inform the clients about complications, alternative treatments, and risks that may occur during medication procedure. Due to the issue of excluding patients in decision making, Standard Healthcare Facility had to implement a solution to enhance quality service delivery. Implementation of shared Decision Making was essential as patients and nurses worked together in selecting tests, care plans, and treatment. Patient’s wishes are also respected by acknowledging their autonomy, and it may exceed the legal requirement.
Clinicians were equipped with skills and knowledge on how best they can involve patients in the decision making process. Health providers were instructed to access patient personal preferences and involve the client’s family in treatment decisions. The organization employed the use of decisions aid in treatment, which was significant in facilitating patient participation and enhancing shared making of decisions. The development of the intervention was initiated after the administration, alongside experts, discussed the trend of excluding patients in decision making during the treatment process. The solution was also established from the analysis of other organization which has advanced in safeguarding patients’ autonomy and informed consent.
Evaluation
Implementation of the intervention was evident to be essential in restoring the dignity of the Standard Healthcare Facility. Due to the evolution of clinical medicine, medical ethics should keep the pace in the application of new technologies and therapies for quality healthcare (Bester et al., 2016). Patients revealed their utmost gratitude after the implementation of Shared Decision Making, which enabled them to be involved in the decision making of their treatment. The reduction in medical errors also proved that the intervention was successful. Health providers conducted a consultation with patients concerning their health, thus making a wise decision. In the subsequent months after implementation, a survey was carried out in the organization, it was discovered that patient autonomy and informed consent during treatment was prioritized.
The patients disclosed that health practitioners told them the procedure, alternative methods, and risks associated with the medication, which was essential for wise decision making of treatment. An increase in revenues in the subsequent months signified the success of the intervention.
References
Abuabah, F., Alwan, A., Al-Jahdali, Y., Alharbi, A., & Al-Jahdali, H. (2019). Common medical ethical issues faced by healthcare professionals in KSA. Journal Of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 14(5), 412-417. Retrieved 19 April 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658361219301027.
Bester, J., Cole, C., & Kodish, E. (2016). The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: clinicians’ role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm. AMA Journal Of Ethics, 18(9), 869-886. Retrieved 19 April 2020, from https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2018-05/peer2-1609.pdf.
Raveesh, B., Nayak, R., & Kumbar, S. (2016). Preventing medico-legal issues in clinical practice. Annals Of Indian Academy Of Neurology, 19(1), 15-20. Retrieved 19 April 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5109754/.
Xu, Y., & Wells, P. (2016). Getting (Along) with the guidelines: reconciling patient autonomy and quality improvement through shared decision making. Academic Medicine, 91(7), 925-929. Retrieved 19 April 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920441/.