Chapter Nine: Ethics And Safe Patient Handling And Mobility ✓ Solved

Chapter Nine Ethics and Safe Patient Handing and Mobility Ex

Safe Patient Handling and Mobility (SPHM) is a concern for patients, family members, and healthcare professionals. SPHM involves safety when lifting, re-positioning, and transferring patients. There are barriers to SPHM implementation, including lack of knowledge, perceptions of the use of equipment, and the gender of caregivers. To enhance SPHM, the work culture needs to be influenced, although costs of programs can be a concern. However, programs can save money and prevent injuries. State legislation and professional association campaigns can assist in addressing these issues.

Nonmaleficence is a major ethical principle in SPHM, emphasizing the importance of preventing harm through evidence-based practices. Patient and family education on SPHM is also critical to avoid harm. Beneficence, which encompasses doing the best for others, includes maintaining the dignity of not just patients, but also their family members and staff. Implementing SPHM practices helps prevent staff injuries, aligning with the ethical principle of stewardship.

Social justice plays a role in SPHM practices by reducing the likelihood of injury, subsequently lowering costs associated with worker's compensation and insurance. This chapter aims to provide a critical reflection on the readings from Chapter 9 of the text, integrating them into the framework of healthcare ethics.

Paper For Above Instructions

This reflective paper critically examines the themes presented in Chapter 9 concerning ethics and safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM). The chapter outlines significant barriers to implementing SPHM practices, including a lack of knowledge and prevailing perceptions regarding the use of equipment among caregivers. These barriers hinder the effective adoption of SPHM, thereby endangering patients and healthcare providers alike.

The chapter begins with an overview of SPHM and its relevance to contemporary healthcare. Safe patient handling is not merely a procedural concern; it is a cornerstone of healthcare ethics that prioritizes patient safety and staff welfare. I find that my understanding of SPHM has evolved through the insights provided in this chapter, particularly the emphasis on ethical principles such as nonmaleficence and beneficence.

One key takeaway from Chapter 9 is the ethical obligation to prevent harm, a principle that resonates powerfully with the practice of SPHM. Nonmaleficence, as defined in the text, calls for healthcare professionals to avoid actions that could cause harm to patients. This is particularly relevant when lifting or transferring patients who may be at risk of injury. For instance, utilizing mechanical lifts can significantly reduce the risk of injury to both patients and caregivers. In my current professional role, I can advocate for training sessions that familiarize the staff with SPHM techniques and equipment usage to mitigate such risks.

Another example of how the principles discussed can be applied is through the act of educating patients and their families about safe handling and mobility. Providing patients with guidance on how to request assistance when moving can empower them and promote their dignity in the healthcare setting. This aligns with beneficence, the ethical principle that encourages actions that contribute to the welfare of others. It emphasizes that not only must we consider the immediate well-being of the patients, but we must also consider their families and the support systems surrounding them.

Moreover, this chapter sheds light on the ethical arguments for advocating for SPHM programs and behaviors. As a healthcare professional, it is crucial to recognize that SPHM is not just a personal concern; it reflects the healthcare institution's ethical commitment to creating a safe environment for everyone involved—patients, staff, and families. By embracing these programs, we can potentially decrease workplace injuries, thus reducing worker's compensation costs and promoting a more sustainable healthcare system overall.

The implications of Chapter 9 for my professional role are significant. I am reminded of the responsibilities I hold in advocating for ethical practices within my workplace. This chapter has reinforced my understanding that ethical concerns in healthcare extend beyond clinical duties; they encompass organizational culture and practices as well. Thus, it becomes imperative to advocate for policies and training that prioritize SPHM through a critical ethical lens.

In summary, Chapter 9 presents a compelling case for the integration of ethical principles in SPHM practices. The intricate balance of nonmaleficence and beneficence advocates for the dignity of patients and the safety of healthcare workers, ensuring a holistic approach to care. My critical reflection on the material has led me to conclude that the implications of implementing SPHM practices are far-reaching, influencing patient outcomes and workplace safety. Ultimately, these ethical considerations shape my perspective on health care practices and my role as a healthcare provider.

References

• American Nurses Association. (2021). Safe Patient Handling and Mobility. Retrieved from [source]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Preventing Musculoskeletal Disorders in Nursing. Retrieved from [source]
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2019). Safe Patient Handling: A Guide for Healthcare Professionals. Retrieved from [source]
• Joseph, A., & Hsu, Y. (2018). Ethical Considerations in Developing Safe Patient Handling Policies. Healthcare Ethics. 12(3), 25-30.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Patient Safety: Global Action on Patient Safety. Retrieved from [source]
• Latimer, M. (2020). The Role of Education in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility. Journal of Healthcare Safety. 34(2), 140-145.
• American Physical Therapy Association. (2021). Guidelines for Safe Patient Handling in Physical Therapy. Retrieved from [source]
• Smith, L. (2020). Benchmarking Safe Patient Handling Programs. Health Services Research, 55(1), 300-308.
• Johnson, D., & Smith, R. (2019). The Impact of Safe Patient Handling on Quality of Care. Journal of Nursing Practice, 45(5), 250-255.
• Florida National University. (2020). Biomedical Ethics: Week 5 Critical Reflection Paper: Chapter 9. Retrieved from [source]