Conclusions - by the very nature of culture and humanity, humans tend to be group animals -- they thrive in groups, coalesce into groups, indeed, the very process of moving from hunter-gatherer to cities was part of a group behavior. Group norms are internal rulings that are followed by individuals so that the synergistic effect of the group will be more efficient. These values usually focus on the way members of that group look and behavior towards themselves, and the hierarchical structure they tend to set up to "police" their efforts. Norms help groups solve problems, define and address new situations, make better decisions, and even process their daily work. Groups, in this case members of the medical community, join these groups in order to reflect specific notions and values associated with the overall group. Normative behavior in the medical field is covered by a willingness to help, to "do no harm," and to provide the best possible solutions to the set of circumstances given. There is a clear difference in issues in which a patient expires due to inadequate equipment, prior condition, or even no apparent clinical reason if all procedures were followed to the best of the caregiver's ability -- and a case in which because of substance abuse or other incompetencies the wrong medicine is ordered or something surgical is mishandled. Thus, all errors are not malpractice; and all errors are not purposeful or caused by a lack of attention or ineptitude (Kohn, Corrigan and Donaldson, 2000)
Traditionally, in the medical field, errors are attributed to mistakes made by individuals who may be punished for those mistakes. Typically, the approach is to correct the error(s), create a new set of rules and additional checking steps within the system, hopefully preventing area. However, a newer model for improvement, based on the Total Quality Management Programs in business, takes a different approach. In this model, the focus is on identification of the underlying system defects that allow the opportunity for an error to even occur. Then, instead of placing a Band-Aid on a problem that already exists, systems...
This approach also takes into consideration the holistic environment of care; the medical personnel, patients, physical environment, and available technology (Dewar, 2010; Peratec, 1995).
While there is no clear solution to the problem of medical error, the systems are simply too complex to guarantee a 0% error margin, we can perhaps move from viewing all medical error as incompetence, and begin to see more of a systematic paradigm of healthcare in which all sides take adequate responsibility for their own tasks, including the patient, and understand that there simply are no guarantees when it comes to complex biological systems. Honest reporting of errors would go a long way to identifying the real nature of the problem, but in such a litigious society, it is difficult to believe that complete transparency in errors is likely. Instead, perhaps the medical field can utilize some of the safety and error prevention techniques from the aviation industry: ensure the patient's informed consent policy is clear and comprehensive; encourage second opinions on many diagnoses; perform regular root cause and TQM tests on procedures; reevaluate systems (computer and human) for synergy; hospital accreditation; and a system in which errors are reported accurately (Error Disclosure, 2009).
Physicians Want to Learn from Medical Mistakes. (2008, January 9). Retrieved November 2010, from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2008/errepsyspr.htm
Error Disclosure. (2009, March). Retrieved from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer.aspx?primerID=2
Improving America's Hosptials. (2010, March). Retrieved November 2010, from the Joint Commission's Annual Report on Quality and Safety: http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/D60136A2-6A59-4009-A6F3-04E2FF230991/0/2010_Annual_Report.pdf
Dewar, D. (2010). Essentials of Health Economics. Philadelphia, PA: Jones and Bartlett.
Epidemiology of Medical Error. (2000). British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 774-81.
Hayward and Hofer. (2001). Estimating Hosptial Deaths Due to Medical Errors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(2), 415-20.
Johnson, S. (2007). Making Up Is Hard to Do. The hastings Center Report, 37(2), 45+.
Kohn, Corrigan and Donaldson. (2000, June). To Err Is Human. Retrieved November 2010, from the National Academies Press: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9728
Peratec. (1995). Total Quality Management: The Key to Business Improvement. London: Chapman and Hall.
Rathert, Fleigh-Palmer and Palmer. (2006). Minimizing Medical Errors: A Qualitative Analysis of Health Care Providers' Views on Imrproving Safety. Journal of Applied management, 11(2), 44+.
The documents we provide are to be used as a sample, template, outline, guideline in helping you write your own paper, not to be used for academic credit. All users must abide by our "Student Honor Code" or you will be restricted access to our website.
Medical Errors: Faulty Health Care System [N a m e] Medical or health professionals are considered to be the most respected and most valued persons. These professionals are source of hope for people suffering from different diseases. This puts additional responsibility on the doctors and health professionals and they are required to be more careful and cautious while performing their operations and duties. Despite of all special care and caution on part of the
Economics of Medical Errors Medical Error Economics The 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System pulled the curtain back on the dark secret of medical errors (Institute of Medicine, 2000). The best estimates at the time suggested that between 44,000 and 98,000 people were dying each year due to medical errors. A more recent study discovered that the current system of relying on voluntary
Hospitals and Public Health: Crises Medical Error Medical errors have caused a crisis in the national health care system. According to the Bureau of Primary Health Care, using studies from Colorado, Utah and New York, estimates that 44,000 -- 98,000 hospitalized people die in the U.S. annually due to medical errors (BPHC Task Force on Patient Safety, 2001, p. 5). In addition, as of March 31, 2010, the ten most frequently reported
Patient care and recovery statistics demonstrate that the United States has a medical care system with which Americans are less satisfied than other citizens in developed countries. There are many reasons for this: correlation between health and socioeconomic status; non-universality; federal government is not involved in medical planning although it purchases a large percentage of the 14% health care GNP; lobbying and special interest group interference; and political opposition to
In this case, that power dynamic was only exacerbated by the fact that the entire MSICU nursing team had never received training in management of the type of clinical issues presented and by the fact that they were excluded from any consultation in connection with a post-operative management plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the institution immediately implement a policy of "see something, say something" according to which all members
Identifying Opportunities to Reduce Medication Error Rates by Nursing Staff Today, one of the most challenging problems facing nurses practicing in any setting, but most especially tertiary healthcare facilities, is the adverse drug reactions caused by medication errors. Although medication errors can occur at numerous stages of care during hospitalization and outpatient follow-up, nurses are on the front lines in preventing these errors (Da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). This is an