Carlos Albizu University Week 2 Research Methods in Healthcare Management Discussion

User Generated

Puvab87

Writing

Carlos Albizu University

Description

Week 2

Research Methods in Healthcare Management APA Style Question

Part 1

Discussion Prompt 1-3 Paragraphs

Choose one of the basic principles of medical ethics and explain why it is more important than the others.

Part 2 (Please Separate this part to a different Word Document)

Week 2 Assignment: Case Study Diaz vs. Hillsbourgh County Hospital Authority

Objective: Identify key ethical considerations when planning a research study.

Download and read the Case Study: Diaz vs. Hillsbourgh County Hospital Authority. (Attached)

Answer the following questions. Use complete sentences, paraphrases, and quotes to support your answers when appropriate. Remember to include citations.

  • What other actions could the nurse have taken? Which do you think is the most ethical?
  • What is the role of the medical residents in this case? Please be sure to analyze their ethical implications.
  • What is the role of the nurse supervisor? Please be sure to analyze the supervisor’s role in terms of ethics.
  • In the case study, Dr. Morales felt that he had done nothing wrong and he never did anything harmful to a research subject. Why do you think he feels his actions were justified? What are some circumstances where you feel that not notifying the research subject about her or his participation in a study would be justified?
  • Some of the pregnant women in this case study were subjected to five or six amniocentesis. Why do you think they never questioned the number of procedures they were receiving?
  • Why didn’t any other nurses or hospital personnel blow the whistle on these unethical practices? What prevents whistle-blowing?

Your total responses should be no longer than two pages long. Include a title page and a reference list. You must cite and reference your textbook. Remember to always cite your sources using APA Style.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Case Study: Diaz vs. Hillsbourgh County Hospital Authority In 1987, Karen Perrin reported to the high-risk perinatal outpatient clinic at Tampa General Hospital with affiliation to the University of South Florida in Tampa. She was looking forward to a busy day and the change of pace. Karen had worked at Tampa General since January 1986. Her normal assignment was labor and delivery, but as a part-time nurse, it was not unusual for her to fill in elsewhere. For the next two weeks, Karen worked at the outpatient high-risk pregnancy clinic while Sue, the clinic’s head nurse, took time off for her wedding. In total, Karen was assigned to work in the clinic for a total of four weeks. She worked in the clinic for two weeks, returned to her regular position for two weeks, and then was again temporarily assigned to the clinic for two additional weeks because Sue’s daughter became ill. Among other clinic tasks, Karen cared for high-risk pregnant women who came to the clinic for amniocenteses. Amniocentesis is a procedure in which a needle is inserted through a women’s abdomen to extract amniotic fluid for testing. Karen entered each patient’s name, hospital number, and Medicaid or insurance number into the “amnio” record log at the desk. She took the patient’s weight and blood pressure, measured her belly, and checked her urine. She set up the tray of amniocentesis needles and test tubes and labels for the tubes. She explained the procedure to the patients, offered reassurance, and asked if they had any questions. During her clinic assignment, Karen noticed something unusual. The pregnant women did not ask questions about the procedure. “I kept seeing all these women having amnios. Over and over and over. I’d see them one week, I’d say, “Why are you back again?” I’m looking in their chart and I’m seeing that this is amnio #5, amnio #6. …” When she talked with the pregnant women, it was clear that they did not understand why they were having so many amniocenteses. Their response was always the same: “The doctor told me, if I don’t do them, my baby will die.” An Inquiry In late 1987, Karen consulted her supervisor. A meeting was schedule with the vice president of nursing and director of the perinatal unit. They told her that the pregnant women were part of a medical study that had been approved by university and hospital institutional review boards. Therefore, they considered the matter closed. Her supervisor told her to drop the issue and not pursue additional investigation into the matter. Karen did not stop because she suspected that the women were unaware of a medical study. She continued to press for further investigation. In February 1988, a final meeting was held and the vice president of nursing made it clear that she had not taken any action and that she did not intend to investigate the matter further. The Next Step Karen shared her concerns with a friend who was a civil rights attorney, Stephen Hanlon. At the advice of Mr. Hanlon and the American Nursing Association, Karen was instructed to gather the evidence. She went to the high-risk clinic, took the amnio record log, made a copy, and returned the log to the clinic drawer. She returned a few days later to copy the last few pages, only to discover that “someone had taken a razor blade and cut all the pages out of the book. The pages were gone, and they were never found again. This was our only evidence.” She provided the copied amnio record log to Stephen Hanlon. She also found the contact information for 10 women in the log who had multiple amniocenteses. She contacted them by mail and stated that their rights may have been violated and invited them to contact her. Only one woman, Flora Diaz, age 16, responded. The Lawsuit In January 1990, Stephen Hanlon filed a federal class action lawsuit accusing the university, the hospital, and two physician researchers of ignoring DHHS regulations on informed consent. Although the lawsuit was initially filed in response to a fetal lung study involving approximately 280 women, investigation revealed some 30 studies at Tampa General involving 5,000 pregnant women between November 1986 and January 1990. Because none of the women or their babies were harmed, this case is not about malpractice but rather a matter of dignity. The women were used as research subjects without their informed consent. Doctors’ Perspective Walter Morales, MD, one of two physician researchers in the lawsuit, denied any wrongdoing. “I can assure you I would never do anything to a research subject that I wouldn’t do to my own wife.” Furthermore, he noted that he wished the case had gone to trial instead of being settled because he did not believe that the facts would show the patients were coerced into signing the forms. The results of the study were published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and as a result, the combined use of corticosteroids and thyrotropin-releasing hormone is now common practice in many hospitals. The Settlement After almost 10 years of litigation, the case was settled out of court. Under the agreement, the university and the state of Florida paid $2.7 million and Tampa General Hospital paid $1.14 million. In addition to the cash payment, the hospital and university agreed to revise record keeping so that information on study participants was easily accessible in a database. Tampa General Hospital and the University of South Florida also agreed to apply a standard readability test to their consent forms before submitting future projects to the IRB. A Postscript Karen Perrin, whistle-blower in this case, was removed from patient care and was laid off from the hospital in September 1990. The hospital made attempts to revoke her nursing license, but she successfully defended her actions with the assistance of the American Nursing Association. Karen completed her master’s in public health in 1990 and her PhD in 1996 from the College of Public Health at the University of South Florida. Currently, she is an associate professor at the University of South Florida and lectures on medical ethics. Dr. Perrin is the author of this text.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running Head: MEDICAL ETHICS

1

Medical Ethics
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliations

MEDICAL ETHICS

2

Part 1
While all the four basic principles of medical ethics are important in safeguarding
healthcare, the principle of autonomy is most important. According to Scott (2017), the principle
of patient autonomy dictates that patients have the independence of thought, intention, and action
in determining healthcare choices and options. This is particularly significant as it affirms the
central role of the patient in the process of offering care. Ideally, the role of the nurse is limited
to facilitation and counseling to the patient to aid in effective decision-making processes
pertaining to their health. In addition, the principle of patient autonomy also encourages
collaborative approaches to healthcare, whereby nursing professionals assert little control over
the choice of interventions. In so doing, the patient becomes an active player in healthcare
decision-making processes, thereby improving the overall quality of care and patient satisfaction.
Still, the principle of autonomy provides for decision-making processes that are devoid of
any...


Anonymous
Nice! Really impressed with the quality.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags