HCA 430 Ashford University Week 2 Care Evaluation Discussion

User Generated

zfqnfu25

Writing

HCA 430

ashford university

HCA

Description

Vulnerable Population Summary and Proposed Program

The first of your two written assignments for the course will provide a beginning framework that you will utilize in the development of your
Final Project: a proposal for a community-based program in your area. For this first written assignment, you will select one of the vulnerable groups identified in the text that will serve as your target population of interest throughout the duration of your next written assignment and Final Project.

Select one among the following groups from Chapter 1:

  • Vulnerable mothers and children
  • Abused individuals
  • Chronically ill and disabled people
  • People diagnosed with HIV/AIDS
  • People diagnosed with mental conditions
  • Suicide- and homicide-liable people
  • People affected by alcohol and substance abuse
  • Indigent and homeless people
  • Immigrants and refugees
  • Groups for special consideration (you may propose a different vulnerable population at the consent of the instructor)

Once you have selected a group of interest, write a three page paper that covers the following:

  • Discuss the impact that at least two of the factors below have on the vulnerability of your chosen group:
    • Age
    • Gender
    • Culture/Ethnicity
    • Income
  • Analyze the intersection of social, political, and economic factors affecting vulnerability (must address all three factors).
  • Draft the design of a new model program, not currently existent within your community. Provide a two- to- three paragraph statement that introduces your proposed community program. This section is tentative and might change as you conduct more research. At a minimum, however, items to address should include:
  • An explanation of the issues and risk factors experienced by the selected population.
  • An evaluation of the health needs of the group and a proposed continuum of care level (preventive, treatment, or long-term care) based on the group’s issues, risk factors, and needs. Justify the proposed level with supportive research/evidence.
  • A description of one to two proposed services your program will include.

Your assignment should be a minimum of three pages in length (excluding title and reference pages), and should include a minimum of three scholarly sources cited according to APA guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Introduction Two women enter the hospital with pneumonia. They are similar in age, but of different races. One patient has private health insurance; the other is on Medicaid. One patient recovers quickly while the other languishes. What can be surmised from the differences in the two patients? Thinking on this and asking the right questions allows health care providers to create patient care plans that better meet each patient's needs. Providing better health care to all patients requires awareness of environmental factors that may prohibit timely recovery and put the patient at risk for secondary and repeat infections. Environmental factors such as finances, family, and education all affect a person's vulnerability, or risk level. Understanding statistical data on vulnerable populations will help you interpret patient information. This allows easier identification of those who are at risk, so that providers may plan care accordingly. Addressing the needs of at-risk populations leads to faster patient recovery, thereby lowering the cost of patient care. Lowering health care costs is important for the patient, the care provider, and the whole country. Nonprofit organizati1.1 Social Theory and Public Policy in Health Care Courtesy of iStockphoto/Thinkstock Prohibiting smoking in public places exemplifies the social theory of the common good, because the mandate is meant to benefit everyone. Health is both an individual consideration and a community concern. In other words, an individual makes decisions that directly affect him or herself, and a society makes decisions that affect and manage the society itself. For example, a person may choose to smoke cigarettes, thereby damaging his or her own lungs. However, this action also has an impact on those around the smoker because secondhand smoke has been shown to be a valid health concern. Thus, society may create public policy, or laws, that outlaw smoking in public places with the intent of ensuring that one person's decision to smoke does not harm others. A law that bans smoking in public places is based on the social theory of the common good, meaning it is intended to help everybody. The concept of the common good focuses on creating a benefit for the most members of a community. Sometimes the common good is juxtaposed with the social theory of individual rights, which is based on protecting personal freedoms. Public controversy often ensues when the common good is perceived to infringe on such individual rights. For example, social theory centered on the common good led to the creation of public policy in the form of a law banning smoking in public places, which results in heated debate among lawmakers and citizens. One side argues that such laws are necessary to protect society; the opposition argues that personal freedom should not be inhibited by the collective citizenry. The United States Bill of Rights is the primary protector of individual liberties in the United States. The argument that personal freedom should not be inhibited by the collective citizenry is primarily based on three amendments: The Ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment further protects individual liberties by stating, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Fourteenth Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However, the argument in favor of passing legislation to promote the common good is based directly on the preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" (Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, 1787). Courtesy of bbbar/Fotolia Pareto's principle explains why the common good and individual fairness often conflict. In many cases, a small group of people do most of the work, which the majority then benefits from. The Constitution and amendments then go on to describe Congress's power to legislate. Which option is the fair choice? That question plagues American health policy. America dogmatically strives for justice and fairness for all citizens. Social theorists and policymakers alike refer to the Pareto principle when the common good and individual rights are directly at odds. The Pareto principle is the theory that 80% of the outcome is caused by 20% of the effort (Juran, 1994). This is often seen in community involvement situations wherein a handful of people do most of the work while the majority does very little. In social theory, the Pareto principle is often translated to mean that fairness for all does not necessarily create fairness for every individual and that some instances occur wherein fairness for all has negative effects on the common good (Kaplow & Shavell, 2000). Take the case of a communist society wherein all resources are combined then doled out equally among people, regardless of how much each person contributed. Ensuring food for all citizens benefits the common good, but a farmer who worked hard all year to fill the pantry may end up without enough to feed his family for the winter because others were less industrious, so his equal share becomes less than what he worked for. Social Attitudes Versus Individual Choice The smoking ban example illustrates how social attitudes—which are positive or negative evaluations of people, places, things, events, and the like, and are shared by a majority of the community as a whole—and individual choice are not always in agreement. Social attitudes are the result of generalized, shared ethics in a society. They help shape our overall health environment. For example, positive social attitudes toward cigarettes viewed smoking in public spaces to be perfectly acceptable and even doctor recommended in the early 1900s. The current social attitude toward cigarette smoking has caused the number of cigarette users in the United States to drop below 20% (see Figure 1.1). This in turn has created a drop in tobaccorelated illness and death. Negative social attitudes about cigarette use, caused by a collective realization regarding the negative effects of smoke, secondhand smoke, and related illnesses, have positively affected the nation's health. Figure 1.1: Percentage of adults in the U.S. who use cigarettes A line graph depicts the decrease in the percentage of adults who use cigarettes at various multi-year intervals between 1965 (about 43%) and 2010 (about 20%).Social attitudes toward cigarette smoking have changed drastically in the last 50 years, causing cigarette use to decline. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2011). Trends in current cigarette smoking among high school students and adults, United States, 1965–2010. Retrieved January 9, 2012, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm Social attitudes are part of the collective, or macro, influences on our health. Other macrolevel influences include messages from the media, such as commercials for fast food. Health policy is often created in response to macro influences on our society's health environment, or the combined collective knowledge created through rigorous study, comprehensive evaluation, and peer-reviewed publication of facts related to the collective public good. Considering only the macro view does not consider the individual, or micro, influences or decisions that we each make about our health. Micro influences on health include whether we choose to walk, bike, or drive to work or school, and which foods we select at the grocery. A debate lingers over whether the micro or macro perspective is more useful when considering health decisions and policy.ons and government agencies work to identify and help at-risk groups. This activity affects both government and organizational policy among health care providers. This text investigates the statistical data and indicators of vulnerable populations in American health care. It also covers the causes of vulnerability and the prevailing ideologies on dealing with at-risk populations. We will also discuss what is currently being done through policymaking and program implementation to address the needs of vulnerable populations and what the future looks like for at-risk groups. This chapter focuses on identifying vulnerable populations. The relationship between resource availability and health is an important part of recognizing atrisk groups. Finally, we will look at statistical data concerning the at-risk groups identified in the book. 1.2 Considerations for Studying Vulnerable Populations How do we apply social theory to the study of vulnerable populations? First, we must begin by categorizing the influences that affect the health of these groups. The influences are used to determine which social groups in our society are defined as vulnerable populations. Community and Personal Values Americans largely associate good health with good personal habits and decisions. This means that culturally, Americans expect each person to take responsibility for his or her health-related habits and actions. Daily exercise, dietary choices, and other behaviors are not heavily regulated by public policy or community values. Each person's own values determine his or her health outcomes. Of course, we cannot entirely disregard community health values. After all, they do shape public health policy. Community values also affect the community's investment in resources and opportunities that impact health, from regulating pollution levels to ensuring the availability of fresh produce. Community-based health policies help bridge the gap between microlevel personal choices and macrolevel governmental thinking. Most public policy decisions grow, not from massive governmental thinking, but from grassroots efforts, like the previously discussed smoking ban(s). These grassroots efforts are evidence of the power of individuals to affect public policy. The Louisville, Kentucky, Farm to Table program offers a good example. Two movements were simultaneously growing in the Louisville community. One movement, led by local farmers and entrepreneurs, focused on expanding access to locally farmed foods within the community; the other movement, led by parents and school cafeteria employees, focused on improving the nutrition of school lunches. When these two groups combined efforts, the Farm to Table program was altered, and creating avenues to getting locally farmed foods into school cafeterias became an important goal throughout the community. As the community at large increased program participation, the local city government became involved with programs and grants to increase the scope of the Farm to Table program. Access to Resources A photograph of a woman sitting and a man standing near the end of a yacht. Each are dressed in white and they look at each other as their yacht sails on the sea. Courtesy of 123RF Limited/123RF Opportunities, rewards, and personal characteristics can be attributed to an individual's social status. From a macro perspective, we see that the distribution of resources within a community has a direct impact on health risk. Resource distribution often correlates with social status, social capital, and human capital. Though American society tries to equalize the distribution of resources through social welfare programs, it is no secret that individuals gain or lose access to opportunities and resources depending on their social status, social ties, and ability to invest in their own potential. Social Status An individual's place in society, called social status, is attributable to personal characteristics, opportunities, and rewards. Personal characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, education level, and income result in social rewards like social power, or a lack thereof. Age affects a person's wellness (e.g., elderly people are usually more susceptible to chronic illness than young adults) as well as a person's need to depend on others for his or her wellbeing (e.g., children depend on adults for medical care). Gender is also an important factor in health and level of health risk. Women are more susceptible to certain cancers, for example, but are more likely to seek medical care. Men are more susceptible to work-related health risks, as they traditionally hold more physically demanding jobs. The emotional differences between men and woman also affect vulnerability. Statistically, women are more likely to suffer the ill consequences of eating disorders, whereas it can be said that men are socially trained to eat more red meat and maintain a more robust physique, decisions which come with their own sets of health risks. Health Care for the Poor Ethnicity and race are two of the most studied factors in social status and health risk because minorities historically have less access to the social rewards that limit risk levels. Lower-class urban neighborhoods with a high number of minority residents often lack representation in social politics and suffer for it with higher levels of air and water pollution, which increase the level of health risk for all residents. Furthermore, poverty can breed crime, and the stress of living in a high-crime area also negatively affects a person's health. Stress can manifest physically by presenting as complaints such as headaches. Stress can also increase the likelihood of negative health behaviors, such as cigarette and alcohol use. Limited access to resources, including fresh vegetables and medical care, increases the burden. Low-income areas are commonly populated with fast-food restaurants that serve high-fat foods, whereas more affluent areas often have more grocery stores and farmers' markets. Additional factors such as migrant status further increase a person's vulnerability. Risk factors do not stand alone. An elderly minority female has different risk factors than an elderly Caucasian male. Social Capital Social capital is the measurement of personal relationships in an individual's life. The number, type, and reliability of interpersonal relationships greatly influence a person's vulnerability and health risk. For example, a single mother is less likely to spend a day in bed, resting and recovering from an illness, than a mother who has a partner or someone reliable who can care for the children. Working parents are better able to maintain viable employment if grandparents and other relations are available to help with child care. A photo of an older woman, younger woman, and little girl smiling at each other while fresh produce sits in front of them. Courtesy of Hemera/Thinkstock Health risk depends on several factors, including the quantity and quality of a person's interpersonal relationships. The ability to work creates opportunities and other social rewards. An upwardly mobile career path grants access to money and insurance to help pay for doctor visits and medicine. The opportunity to meet people and grow friendships at work adds to a person's support network. A strong, healthy support network directly influences psychological and physical well-being, lessening a person's health risk. Hospitals and rehabilitation facilities have found that patients who have reliable support systems enjoy faster recovery times and spend less time recuperating in the medical center in favor of convalescing at home with the assistance of a robust, developed support system. Reducing the length and frequency of hospital stays reduces the risk of secondary and recurrent infections. Human Capital Human capital is the amount of investment in a person's potential. Low-income individuals often have low human capital, while higher-income individuals enjoy investment in their potential in the form of education, opportunities for advancement, and even better access to higher-quality health care. The more investment made in a person's potential, or future, the more that person will be able to contribute to society in a positive way. Data on various subjects including education, wage earnings, and health care access indicates gaps in human capital based on gender, age, and ethnicity. Poor-performing schools are more common in low-income neighborhoods, females are sometimes passed over for advanced training and managerial positions, and minorities often suffer a lack of social resource allocation. In all of these examples, failure to invest in people's potential negatively influences their longterm outcomes. Poorly educated children are less likely to attend college, the disenfranchised female will lose work productivity, and the neighborhood that needs public resources to fix streetlights will see an increase in crime. Outside influences are not the only way to invest in human capital. Individuals invest in their own potential by working hard at school and work and by organizing communities to create the change they want. Conversely, investment in human capital can be negatively impacted by a collective lifestyle perspective. The collective lifestyle perspective dictates behavior based on social constructs, or ideas, about the way people "like me" should behave (Barnes, Hall, & Taylor, 2010). Middle-class mothers may perceive that smoking is unacceptable among their peers and so give up smoking. Conversely, adolescents in low-income areas may perceive that smoking makes them more accepted among their peers and so take up the unhealthy habit. Critical Thinking Do you have a support network? Can they help with family needs such as child care or transportation? Are they supportive of your education goals? Health Indicators The World Health Organization (WHO) is an international organization that coordinates healthrelated efforts around the globe. The WHO definition of health goes beyond the mere absence of illness, proposing that "health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (World Health Organization [WHO], 2012). From this definition of health, we can see where values and resources are directly linked to wellbeing. The WHO definition indicates that health exists in varying degrees, based on a number of recognized indicators. Indicators of physical health are considered the measurements of the body's wellness, such as bodily illness and disability. Mental health indicators measure emotional issues such as stress and mental illness. The WHO definition also includes social well-being, based on indicators such as relationships with others. Figure 1.2 illustrates the health continuum. Figure 1.2: The health continuum A graph illustrating the Health Continuum via a line with arrows on each end. "Perfect Health" is at one end of the continuum and "Death" is at the other, with "Chronic Illnesses" and "Cold and Flu" in between.Health is not simply the absence of disease. A person's degree of health exists on a spectrum, fluctuating throughout life. Health is measured along a continuum, with great health at one end and death on the opposite end. Minor ailments fall nearer the perfect health end of the continuum, with more severe needs nearer the death end. The WHO definition of health clearly includes physical, mental, and social components. Physical health deals with the body and bodily functions, mental health includes brain functions such as thought and emotions, and social health includes interpersonal relationships with others. Physical health is measured by patient perception, doctor opinion, and clinical testing. Another way to measure health is based on a patient's abilities to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). Basic ADLs include personal hygiene and being able to dress oneself, feed oneself, walk with or without assistance, and use the restroom (Weiner, Hanley, Clark, & Van Nostrand, 1990). Patient perception of well-being cannot be overlooked when measuring health. An important part of patient perception of well-being involves the concept that people alter their behavior when they perceive that they are unwell. Staying in bed and eating chicken soup are two common "sick role" behaviors. Perception is a key tool in measuring both mental health and social health, as people interpret stressors and relationships differently. Patient perception, doctor opinion, and clinical testing are standard ways of measuring individual health status but do not offer a larger picture of community health status. Community health status is measured with statistics of the rates of occurrence of illness, disease, and death within a recognized group. This data, such as that shown in Figure 1.3, is used to influence public policy and the distribution of public resources. Figure 1.3: U.S. infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births, by maternal education and race A bar graph illustrates the U.S. Infant Mortality Rates per 1,000 live births, broken first into columns based on the mother's education level and then subdivided by the mother's white or black race. In all five education categories (grades 0-8, 9-11, 12, 13-15, and 16), the infant mortality rate decreases as the mother's education level increases. In all race-based subcategories, the infant mortality rate was higher for black women than for white women.Mortality rates for children born to white mothers is much lower overall than for children born to black mothers; however, both races see a significant decrease in infant mortality as the mother's number of years of completed education rises. Singh, G. K. & Yu, S. M. (1995). Infant mortality in the United States: Trends, differentials, and projections, 1950 through 2010. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7). Retrieved January 12, 2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615523/pdf/amjph004450063.pdf Critical Thinking Where does your current total health fall on the health continuum? Can you think of a time when your health measured nearer the negative end? Do you feel that patient perception is a reliable method of measurement for use in global decisions regarding heath issues? Risk Potential A photo of two syringes on the floor in the foreground while in the background a young man sits on the floor near a wall and gives himself an injection with a syringe. Courtesy of iStockphoto/Thinkstock In groups exposed to certain risk factors, negative life events can cause more adverse reactions than in groups not exposed to those same factors. The data on infant mortality and maternal race and education in Figure 1.3 also illustrates the concept of relative risk, or risk potential. Relative risk is the potential of imperfect health in groups exposed to risk factors, such as drug use, in relation to the potential of imperfect health in groups not exposed to the same risk factors. The concept of relative risk embodies the differential vulnerability hypothesis, which theorizes that some people have more adverse reactions than others to negative life events. Studies of the differential vulnerability hypothesis have found that members of low socioeconomic status groups experience higher levels of anxiety, stress, and emotional duress when faced with negative events and information than do persons of higher socioeconomic status. Considering the factors that contribute to health and well-being (social status, social capital, and human capital), we can ascertain that a deficiency in these factors is a likely cause of the higher levels of mental duress in stressful situations experienced by members of low socioeconomic groups. For example, a wealthy person who receives a speeding ticket is less likely to be concerned about how he or she will pay the ticket than a person on a fixed income. For the latter, paying a ticket strains an already tight budget that must pay for food and shelter. Without reasonable levels of social status, social capital, and human capital, where is the extra money to come from? Critical Thinking Why do you think members of low socioeconomic status groups experience higher levels of anxiety, stress, and emotional duress when faced with negative events and information than do persons of higher socioeconomic status? Public Policy The World Health Organization works to affect public health policy and practices on a global scale. In the United States, public health policy is created by local, state, and federal politicians. Many organizations influence the policies as they are created. Some organizations or groups that influence public health policy in this country include the following: Health insurers Lobbyists Planned Parenthood of America Health care providers The American Public Health Association The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The Public Health Initiative National Association of Public Boards of Health Public Health Foundation The World Health Organization American Medical Association The list of groups influencing public health policy in the United States goes on and on, but one thing is important to note: There is a community of these organizations. Though Americans primarily take the micro perspective on good health, believing that individuals should be personally responsible for healthy lifestyle choices, the macro perspective is ever present. Individuals belong to communities, from the neighborhood level to the international community, and every group in between. The community perspective of health care policy emphasizes the creation of a social support system that cares for vulnerable people and populations. Government regulations control the distribution of resources that can strengthen a vulnerable community and positively affect the level of vulnerability to at-risk populations. 1.3 Statistical Data on the Population Totals and Growth Trends of Identified Vulnerable Populations Public policymakers and health care researchers rely on statistical data from governmental or academic studies to inform decision makers on necessary changes to resource allocation. Many organizations perform studies that provide statistics and other data, but the most influential American organization on the subject of public health is the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (2012). The NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It collaborates with numerous organizational members of the health community in every community across the nation to survey and identify health problems and vulnerable populations in the United States. The result of these studies is the national Healthy People objectives list, which specifies the nation's most pressing health needs and indicates ways to address them and fund programs for doing so. The Healthy People health objectives list is updated every 10 years. Considerations in Studying Data It is difficult to get definitive data on any given population. Variations in how studies are conducted, the communities in which they are conducted, and the type of respondents all contribute to incomplete and inaccurate data compilation. Add to these hurdles the fact that vulnerable populations overlap, and it is nearly impossible to create a perfect picture of the total number of America's vulnerable populations, their relative risk profiles, and their needs. Different data sources, including vital statistics counts of deaths and births, patient perception of illness, health agency records, and clinical diagnoses reports, provide differing estimates of individual needs within groups. It is difficult to compare needs across groups, and studies may be biased. Increases and decreases in some statistics are subjective due to influences of social, or in some cases medical, ethics. For example, a rise in reports of child abuse may not indicate an increase in actual child abuse but instead may indicate a shift in social ethics that has made people more likely to report child abuse incidents. It is also difficult to compare data across groups because different indicators are used to measure statistics. Resource needs for the chronically ill are often based on clinical records measuring physical limitations. These measurements are based on clinical information, physician recommendations, and patient perceptions of pain and illness. Statistics on family abuse are based on case reports. It is understood that many abuse cases go unreported, but the number of unreported cases is unknown. Needs assessments of other vulnerable populations are based on varying evidence of poor health and functioning. The Public Health Data Standards Consortium promotes standardization of health and community statistical studies and data in an effort to make the data more accessible and meaningful. Connections Between Vulnerable Groups The last few decades have seen interesting changes in the population numbers of vulnerable groups. The number of Americans living with HIV and AIDS has risen drastically since the virus was first recognized by the CDC in the 1980s. In fact, the number of people with HIV/AIDS doubled in almost every measured area of residence from 2004 to 2008, as shown in Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: Reported number of people living with HIV/AIDS by area of residence A bar graph shows, in 500-person increments, the reported number of AIDS cases from 20042008 and the estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS in 2008 from 12 geographical areas across the United States and Puerto Rico.Reported AIDS cases rapidly increased nationwide from 2004 to 2008. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008a). Reported AIDS cases and persons reported living with AIDS, by area of residence, 2004–2008 and as of December 2008—eligible metropolitan areas and transitional grant areas for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2010supp_vol17no1/pdf/2010_hiv_aids_s sr_vol17_n1.pdf#page=8 A photo of a homeless man sitting on a sidewalk against a wall with a Golden Retriever dog laying next to him. Courtesy of Tony Baggett/iStockphoto The homeless population is affected by HIV/AIDS at a rate three times greater than the general population. This data does not include unreported cases, which is a problematic inconsistency in the data measurement. An unknown number of unreported cases complicate resource allocation for this vulnerable population. HIV/AIDS affects the homeless population at an estimated 3.4%, a higher rate than the general population at 1% (National Coalition for the Homeless [NCH], 2007). Homelessness is difficult to define and track because it is often a transitory situation. The homeless population is measured primarily based on shelter occupancy and street counts, which can vary depending on a range of factors, starting with weather. 1.3 Statistical Data on the Population Totals and Growth Trends of Identified Vulnerable Populations Public policymakers and health care researchers rely on statistical data from governmental or academic studies to inform decision makers on necessary changes to resource allocation. Many organizations perform studies that provide statistics and other data, but the most influential American organization on the subject of public health is the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (2012). The NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It collaborates with numerous organizational members of the health community in every community across the nation to survey and identify health problems and vulnerable populations in the United States. The result of these studies is the national Healthy People objectives list, which specifies the nation's most pressing health needs and indicates ways to address them and fund programs for doing so. The Healthy People health objectives list is updated every 10 years. Considerations in Studying Data It is difficult to get definitive data on any given population. Variations in how studies are conducted, the communities in which they are conducted, and the type of respondents all contribute to incomplete and inaccurate data compilation. Add to these hurdles the fact that vulnerable populations overlap, and it is nearly impossible to create a perfect picture of the total number of America's vulnerable populations, their relative risk profiles, and their needs. Different data sources, including vital statistics counts of deaths and births, patient perception of illness, health agency records, and clinical diagnoses reports, provide differing estimates of individual needs within groups. It is difficult to compare needs across groups, and studies may be biased. Increases and decreases in some statistics are subjective due to influences of social, or in some cases medical, ethics. For example, a rise in reports of child abuse may not indicate an increase in actual child abuse but instead may indicate a shift in social ethics that has made people more likely to report child abuse incidents. It is also difficult to compare data across groups because different indicators are used to measure statistics. Resource needs for the chronically ill are often based on clinical records measuring physical limitations. These measurements are based on clinical information, physician recommendations, and patient perceptions of pain and illness. Statistics on family abuse are based on case reports. It is understood that many abuse cases go unreported, but the number of unreported cases is unknown. Needs assessments of other vulnerable populations are based on varying evidence of poor health and functioning. The Public Health Data Standards Consortium promotes standardization of health and community statistical studies and data in an effort to make the data more accessible and meaningful. Connections Between Vulnerable Groups The last few decades have seen interesting changes in the population numbers of vulnerable groups. The number of Americans living with HIV and AIDS has risen drastically since the virus was first recognized by the CDC in the 1980s. In fact, the number of people with HIV/AIDS doubled in almost every measured area of residence from 2004 to 2008, as shown in Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: Reported number of people living with HIV/AIDS by area of residence A bar graph shows, in 500-person increments, the reported number of AIDS cases from 20042008 and the estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS in 2008 from 12 geographical areas across the United States and Puerto Rico.Reported AIDS cases rapidly increased nationwide from 2004 to 2008. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008a). Reported AIDS cases and persons reported living with AIDS, by area of residence, 2004–2008 and as of December 2008—eligible metropolitan areas and transitional grant areas for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2010supp_vol17no1/pdf/2010_hiv_aids_s sr_vol17_n1.pdf#page=8 A photo of a homeless man sitting on a sidewalk against a wall with a Golden Retriever dog laying next to him. Courtesy of Tony Baggett/iStockphoto The homeless population is affected by HIV/AIDS at a rate three times greater than the general population. This data does not include unreported cases, which is a problematic inconsistency in the data measurement. An unknown number of unreported cases complicate resource allocation for this vulnerable population. HIV/AIDS affects the homeless population at an estimated 3.4%, a higher rate than the general population at 1% (National Coalition for the Homeless [NCH], 2007). Homelessness is difficult to define and track because it is often a transitory situation. The homeless population is measured primarily based on shelter occupancy and street counts, which can vary depending on a range of factors, starting with weather. Migrants and migrant workers often make up a significant percentage of the homeless population. Statistics on migrants obtaining legal permanent resident status in the United States are easily tracked by the Department of Homeland Security (2010). Unauthorized immigrants are difficult to track because they avoid the immigration system. This selection of vulnerable populations illustrates how intermingled the groups are. At-risk mothers and infants can be homeless, living with HIV/AIDS or other chronic illnesses, immigrants, or all three. Alcohol and substance abuse is found in all populations, not only vulnerable ones. Chronic illnesses are prevalent among the homeless population and the elderly. Population-specific data better illustrates this point. Critical Thinking Migrants and migrant workers often make up a significant percentage of the homeless population. Statistics on migrants obtaining legal permanent resident status in the United States are easily tracked by the Department of Homeland Security (2010). Unauthorized immigrants are difficult to track because they avoid the immigration system. This selection of vulnerable populations illustrates how intermingled the groups are. At-risk mothers and infants can be homeless, living with HIV/AIDS or other chronic illnesses, immigrants, or all three. Alcohol and substance abuse is found in all populations, not only vulnerable ones. Chronic illnesses are prevalent among the homeless population and the elderly. Population-specific data better illustrates this point. Chapter Summary Any society that wants to call itself modern must recognize the populations most at risk of negative outcomes and provide resources to help create positive outcomes for these vulnerable groups. Doing so adds to the health and economic viability of the community. But an "all for one, and one for all" model does not always work on a large scale. Resource allocation must be done thoughtfully to create the most positive outcomes for the most people. Statistical data on vulnerable populations helps inform public policy decisions that equalize fairness as much as possible while providing for those in need. At a pivotal point in America's history, following a recession that saw many people lose health care access, recognizing who is vulnerable and how to help them is key for improving the chances of positive outcomes for individuals and the community as a whole.
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. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.

Running Head: CONTINUUM OF CARE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

Continuum of Care Evaluation and Analysis
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Date

CONTINUUM OF CARE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

2

Heart disease is one example of chronic conditions affecting the majority of the
population. In the United States, millions of the population are the risk of suffering from stroke
and heart disease. Risk factors that increase heart disease include high blo...

Similar Content

Related Tags