VIP treatment for certain patients

One ethical issue that the healthcare system rarely speaks about is the fact that healthcare facilities aren’t treating all patients equally. Certain patients are getting the VIP treatment within a facility while others are being left behind. Elite care for VIP patients such as financial donors, trustees’ family members, and other influential people in the community can take many forms. It may result in shorter waiting times or longer physician consultations, or it could mean that the hospital administrator drops by to make sure they don’t have any problems and that their care is first-class. While ensuring the privacy of celebrities enters into the equation, consistently the hospital treats people who are wealthy, or who are donors, differently than the general public. From the viewpoint of a patient I could see how this would be very upsetting to know, but I’ve come to the realization that in America “money talks”. Unfortunately hospitals are a highly profitable business and like any other business when funds are distributed in a timely manner there’s a need to keep those customers coming back. Many American patients feel the same way like they're just a number in line at the butcher's shop. Some patients have had enough, and those who can afford it are choosing to pay hefty premiums out-of-pocket to get more personalized, more polite service. There are now more than 1,000 doctors in the U.S. who have opened concierge, or boutique, practices, according to the Society for Innovative Medical Practice Design

staff shortages in healthcare

The federal government predicts that by 2020, nurse and physician retirements will contribute to a shortage of approximately 24,000 doctors and nearly 1 million nurses. Health industry leaders are faced with the challenge of orchestrating care in an increasingly complex and converging healthcare labor market. Every healthcare institution has an ethical obligation to protect the safety of patients by providing staff in sufficient numbers and with adequate skills to deliver quality care. The ability of institutions to fulfill this obligation is compromised by the current and growing shortage of healthcare professionals and the amount of administrative time that can detract them from patient care. I feel like this issue can solved if Healthcare executives join forces with others in their service areas to address the problem of staff shortages. They should start collaborating to recruit qualified staff members together instead of competing with one another, as well as sharing staff members. For instance one hospital may have a RN shortage, the collaborating hospital could offer some qualified applicants that applied to their hospital. There are an abundance of applicants who are willing to work anywhere. Hospitals need to remember the common goal of healthcare is to serve the community as best as they can.

Whistle blowing in Healthcare: the right thing to do

Some may say that whistle blowers in healthcare are nothing but trouble makers, but I feel that they are courageous individuals. These are people who risk a lot to honor their Code of Ethics and alert someone to wrongdoing and neglect within a health care organization. Those who sit back and allow wrong doings to occur are the ones who should be frowned upon. Our society has become accustom to this unwritten law of not snitching on one another which is perceived as being a traitor. While I feel that the notion of whistle blowing is a courageous morale act, there are a lot of negative consequences that come from this act such as disillusionment, isolation, humiliation, formation of an "anti-you" group, loss of job, questioning of the whistleblower's mental health, vindictive tactics to make the individual's work more difficult and/or insignificant, assassination of character, and formal reprimand from superiors. Whistleblowers have been the driving force behind a series of recent major contemporary public inquiries that have clearly identified significant deficiencies in institutional healthcare quality and safety. In conclusion whistle blowing by health care professionals should not be considered morally wrong. If hospital authorities fail to take action over legitimate reported concerns, whistle blowing is likely to be the only means available to the individual to protect patients at risk of harm.

Healthcare's ethical obligation to patients treatment

It may seem that the hospital has a clear-cut ethical responsibility to offer free or reduced-cost care for all of those in need of medical attention, but in reality they don’t. Millions of uninsured Americans come into hospital wanting and expecting treatment for their illness, then at the sight of their medical bill become infuriated when the cost seems high. Contrary to peoples beliefs hospitals are a major business, and like any other business they strive from profit. If a hospital loses enough money through providing care for those who cannot afford it, it will eventually be forced to close. Ethically a hospital can not deny any person from medical treatment in the U.S insured or not, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be billed for it. Medical equipment, personnel, etc provided to a hospital needs to be funded. Allowing a hospital to operate in a way that allows treatment to go unpaid for jeopardizes the hospitals continuing existence and threatens to put hundreds out of employment. As a future hospital administrator I’m forced to look at this issue with a business point a view. I feel that it is impractical and even shortsighted to think that the hospital is acting unethically when they are only asking for the funds needed to treat the person.

Withholding treatment at the end of life.

When a patient isn’t capable of eating because he or she is ill, a healthcare provider is forced to make the decision of providing nutrition and hydration through intravenous hydration and a feeding tube. Healthcare providers usually don’t have a problem with starting this process, but withholding it at the end of life often becomes an issue that both physicians and family members face. Some people consider medically provided nutrition and hydration a basic human need, and subjecting the patient to a painful death through starvation and dehydration is immoral and barbaric. I feel that patients who aren’t going to recover from their illness should be taken off of feeding tubes by withholding the basic nutrients and hydration needed to live. Research studies have proven that forgoing nutrition and hydration near the end of life leads to greater patient comfort. In fact the study showed that these patients generally did not experience thirst or hunger through this process. People are getting feeding tubes confused with actual drink and food, which is not the case. Feeding tubes are small plastic tube passed through the nose or mouth into the stomach which provides the hydration and nutrients the patient needs to live. Now to me that sounds more barbaric.

Bribery in Healthcare

Bribery has become one of the major issues of medical ethics that doesn't necessarily concern directly dealing with the patient. Doctors are often offered bribes by pharmaceutical companies, in an attempt to have those doctors prescribe the pharmaceutical companies' drugs more often. I feel that by doing this would put the doctor in conflict with important principles of medical ethics, such as the importance of putting the patients' interests first. The patient being prescribe unnecessary medication can become detrimental to their well being. The patient could become addicted with the quantity increase of medication. Also the numerous about of unnecessary pills could cause liver problems and other health related risk that stems from a lot of pill consumption. This type of bribe conflicts with the integrity of the medical profession. I believed that doctors are taught to work their hardest and do what they believe in their hearts to be the best decisions. Prescribing medications for money takes away that highly valued principle, and the trust of the patient.

Should medical errors be withheld from the patient?

Medical errors will forever continue as long as healthcare providers are still human. Once a medical error has they occured, what should be the attitude of the medical profession? Should it be to withhold such information from patients? since ‘what they don't know can't hurt them’ or should such information be honestly disclosed to patients and the appropriate measures taken to redress and prevent any such errors in future? I feel as though it depends on the seriousness of the medical error. If the medical error has caused the patient any harm or a financial deficit due to a longer hospital stay, then i say tell them. I as the patient should know the reasoning behind any misfortune that may have occured while being treated.It isn't fair to keep me in the dark about anything that is negatively affecting me.On the other hand if a medical error has occured and nothing has been negatively affected by it then i say "don't tell me".Only thing that will occur by informing me of the error is angry and worry that could result in a number of consequences for the hospital.

Elderly health care causing unhealthy dilemmas

Recent breakthroughs in technology throughout the U.S health care industry have pioneered some of the boldest and most promising cancer treatments, surgical procedures, and genetically engineered drugs that have increased Americans life expectancy. Unfortunately the same technologies that are helping Americans live longer are also increasing demands on the health care system from a growing population of senior citizens. Questions are now being raised about when and from whom treatments should be withheld? Competition for the scarce medical resources of the health care system grows beyond the system's capacity to provide care for everyone. I believe the best solution to this ethical issue would be rationing out the health care delivered to the elderly. the health of the young can be ensured by relatively cheap preventive measures such as exercise programs and health education, the medical conditions of the elderly are often complicated, requiring the use of expensive technologies and treatments often, these treatments are ineffective in providing any tangible benefit for either patient or society. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but prolonging the lives of the elderly who no longer serve any use for society seems to be very wasteful. As a health care administer I can’t allow myself to become influenced by doing what sounds right all the time, unfortunately the health care industry has become a business and like every other business sometimes you have to do what’s better for the business. In this case I feel like rationing treatment for the elderly is for the betterment of the U.S. Basically the costs to prolong the life of one elderly person might be more productively directed toward the treatment of a far greater number of younger persons whose health can be ensured by less costly measures.

Human Resources helping family wellness

The health nags in human resources have exhausted every possible idea to guide individual employees into good health.That's why the next front in the Wellness Wars is not about the employee. It's about their husbands, wives, and kids. While most big companies already have employee wellness programs, the newest trend is expanding those efforts to include dependents. I feel that this is a great idea for the fact the employees aren't using these benefits themselves. Not to mention those who have to trick health facilities in order to help family members receive insurance. This also will help to motive those employees who weren't willing to get on the program. Perhaps seeing that their family members are taking the positive steps to better themselves,will provide that push for the employee to take his or her heath more seriously. this battle is about more than slimming down and lowering blood pressure. Many policy experts believe that workplace wellness programs have great cost-cutting potential. A recent meta-analysis of existing studies by two Harvard professors published in the February issue of the journal Health Affairs found that for every dollar companies spend on employee wellness, medical costs fall an average of $3.27.

Healthcare recruiting

Recruitment in health care is an ever changing process and happens in many different forms and by many different means. There is no industry that is more primitive in recruiting than healthcare. This is not to say that all healthcare organizations are awful at recruiting; those who have mastered 21st century recruiting approaches achieve phenomenal success. The most two commonly known reasons why recruiting is such a weak point in health care are that too many healthcare organizations are putting doctors in management roles, and nurses and other healthcare professionals in the recruiting and HR positions. Health care organizations put doctors into management roles because they have more education under their belt and have the credentials to carry out the organizations charter. Unfortunately doctors aren’t trained in management, so they aren’t equipped with the proper management tools to handle issues like unexcited employees and incentives. Nurses being assigned positions in the HR department and as recruiters are also an issue because these professionals aren’t properly educated or trained in these specific areas of the health care organization. The solution for both issues would be to hiring employees who specifically specialize in the HR department and recruiting. This is a more costly option for the organization at first but eventually will save a lot of money in the end when the turnover rate is down

Issues: The healthcare H.R department

With the close observation of our health care system, numerous human resource department issues arise. Various insufficient factors emerge that clearly affect health care practices and human resources management. Some of the greater issues from the Human Resources department include the workforce training issue, and the migration of health workers. Workforce training is an important issue within the HR department of our healthcare systems. The human resources personnel need to be able to analyze and determine the skills and the training level of the health workers. The workforce has to have the highest level of awareness in preparation to meet our country's present and future needs. The best way to improve the workforce ability is through provision of better health education and job training. The second issue the HR departments in healthcare are facing is the migration of health care workers. Research suggests that the movement of health care professionals closely follows the migration pattern of all professionals in that the internal movement of the workforce to urban areas. The Human resource issues in health care come in where strategies are required to address the lack of motivation and dissatisfaction resulting from low wages. The best way to improve this issue is to start rewarding those who continue to work hard with more paid vacation days, bonuses, etc.

What does Human Resources mean to you and what is their role in healthcare organizations?

What does human resources mean to me? Honestly I’ve have not gone into too much depth within the human resource department during my years in the workforce, so my knowledge is minor. I do know that those who work in Human Resources are not only responsible for hiring and firing, and that those in Human Resource also handle contacting job references and administering employee benefits. As a future nursing home administrator the human resource department is what makes are breaks getting hired for a position within the specified nursing home facility. The Human Resource departments role in an healthcare organizations are similar to any other business meaning that the Human resource department employees must be great at judging applicants because the applicants potential careers are based on the Human Resource officials decision. They have to be able to decipher not only if their right person for the available positions but also how the applicant will mesh with the current staff. It is not enough to be able to simple just screen, hire, and fire potential employees; The Human Resources department are also responsible for handling a crisis in a smooth, discreet manner such as sexual harassment. Overall Human Resources are the base of an organization; this department is the foundation of any organization success.

Measuring Quality in health care

How does one measure quality in health care? A different perspective leads to different definitions of what’s considered quality in health care. Although there are many perspectives (i.e. patients, stockholders, etc) of what is considered quality in health care, the satisfaction of the patient is nucleus of how well a facility runs. Fortunately there are tools that can help with the measurement of quality in a health care setting. I find the most effective tool in measuring quality of health care is the Quality assessment. A quality assessment measures the difference between expected and actual performance to identify opportunities for improvement. The method of quality assessment that I find is the most affective is the patient exit interview method. The exit interview method is best because it gets the patient experiences in the facility while the thought is still fresh on their mind. The exit interview provide an opportunity to obtain information from the client’s perspective on the services received that day a perspective often very different from that of the health care worker.

The perspective of the patient is the most important determinant as to whether an adverse event has occurred. The patients aren't trained to identify when an adverse event has occurred like physicians, but they are knowledgeable enough to know when there body isn't feeling right. I feel that the patients perspective is more detailed and honest because patients have nothing to gain by crying wolf in a clinical trial (assuming the proper legal procedures has been taken). The patient usually know how their body feels when it is healthy, so the physicians need to see and hear their patients perspective on the event to figure out what went wrong. Who else is going to determine if an adverse event has occurred? The physician can only go by what the patient tells him or her; unless there is visible evidence an adverse event has occurred. The physicians deal with so many different patients it becomes hard for them to keep up with the detail of every patients treatment. Yes, they can read and record information on the patient, but then those tend to focus on the major issues of the clinical trials. Physicians cannot have a complete understanding of the drugs safety without the patients perspective.

The reform bill affects on quality of health care

With the recent passing of the health reform bill the United States is taking a step forward in the progression of our health care system. There are many positive aspects of the bill that will prove to benefit millions of uninsured Americans. I do feel that economically we will all benefit from passing of the bill,but one area that might suffer is the quality aspect of health care. Honestly i can only see the reform bill having an adverse effect on the quality of care in the United States. Issues like the government possibly having a hard time funding the reform plan, thus taking away from technology research and overcrowding health care facilities give me the feeling this wasn't a good idea. How can our country afford to give everybody insurance? The answer is by raising taxes and decreasing funds put towards research. Technology is instrumental in the progression of medicine, and with all the funds being geared toward insuring the country we wont be able to find out easier less pain full ways to treat patients. Over crowding is the other quality issue that will be affected by this bill. As of right now we are short on physicians in this country and there will only be more patients as the bill becomes affective. This means longer wait times and shorter interactions with the physicians. Quality of care as we know it might cease to exist if something doesn't change within the next couple of years before the bill becomes active.

What does quality mean to you?

Quality to me is preceived in terms of preference and value. I evaluate quality of health care according to the responsiveness of my specific need. I find that quality is based mostly on perspective. The patient and provider have different ideas of what is considered quality. Me as the patient is going to define quality as how much effort a physician/facility is puting in to make sure that i am comfortable and treated. Where as a physician would view quality as more technical( making sure the appropriate care is performed,basically doing the right thing right). Comfort is a major part of quality in health care to me. Everybody expects to get treated correctly when it comes to health care,but how you are treated before actually diagnosis is what makes or breaks good quality to me. There has been numerous occasions where I've had to sit for hours in the so called emergency room filling out insurance information before i could get looked at. That is considered poor quality of care to me because i feel that getting treated should be first. I believe its because of issues like this that our countries health care system is viewed in such a negative light.