Ihp 420 Milestone Two Guidelines And Rubric Overview

Ihp 420 Milestone Two Guidelines And Rubric Overview: The Final Cas

The final case study for this course will require you to analyze a court decision in which a physician was found liable for medical malpractice. You will focus on facts pertaining to the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation, and you will explain how they were applied to law. You will then use the facts of the case to identify an ethics issue and determine an ethical theory that would help provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient. Next, you will apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making model to describe how the ethics issue could be resolved. You will also include a discussion about possible violations of the code of ethics in your given field. Lastly, you will augment or vary the facts of the case to create a hypothetical scenario that changes the outcome so that the physician is no longer liable for medical malpractice.

In this project, you will analyze a court case involving medical malpractice. For this milestone, you will use the facts from the original case to identify an ethics issue, determine an ethical theory that would help provide a safe and quality healthcare experience for the patient, and apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making model.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Medical malpractice cases not only highlight breaches in the standard of care but also underscore complex ethical dilemmas faced by healthcare professionals. Analyzing such cases requires a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles involved, as well as an appreciation of ethical considerations that influence clinical decision-making. This paper explores a specific court case where a physician was held liable for malpractice, identifying the ethical issues involved, proposing appropriate ethical theories, and suggesting shared decision-making models to improve patient safety and care quality. Additionally, it discusses ethical guidelines that could prevent similar incidents in future practice and argues for their accountability in safeguarding public trust and professional integrity.

Analysis of Ethical Issues

The case under review involves a physician who failed to adhere to established medical standards, resulting in harm to the patient. The core ethical issues revolve around negligence, informed consent, and beneficence. In this scenario, the physician possibly overlooked critical symptoms or failed to appropriately communicate the risks associated with a treatment option, leading to a breach of the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Such lapses often stem from systemic pressures, inadequate communication, or lack of adherence to professional guidelines, thus causing the malpractice. Evidence from the case indicates that the physician's failure to seek further diagnostic evaluation or inform the patient adequately contributed directly to the adverse outcome (Jonsen, Siegler, & Winslade, 2015). This highlights how violations of the ethical obligation to provide competent and compassionate care can result in legal liabilities.

Application of Ethical Theories

The ethical theory most pertinent to resolving the issues in this case is deontology, which emphasizes adherence to moral duties and professional standards regardless of the outcome (Kant, 1785/2019). Applying deontological ethics underscores the importance of physicians fulfilling their obligatory roles to maintain patient safety and uphold trust in the healthcare system. For instance, the duty to obtain informed consent before administering treatment aligns with Kant’s principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Alternatively, virtue ethics, focusing on moral character and professionalism, also offers valuable insights, promoting traits such as honesty, compassion, and accountability, which are essential for preventing malpractice (Aristotle, 4th century BC). Both theories reinforce the necessity of healthcare providers consistently acting in the patient’s best interest and adhering to ethical duties that transcend mere regulatory compliance.

Shared Decision-Making Model

The Shared Decision-Making (SDM) model facilitates a collaborative approach where clinicians and patients work together to make informed choices about treatment options. Implementing a model such as the MAP (Medicine, Alternatives, and Preferences) framework would foster transparent communication and respect for patient autonomy (Charles, Gafni, & Whelan, 1997). In this case, the physician should have thoroughly discussed the risks, benefits, and alternatives of proposed procedures with the patient, ensuring their values and preferences are incorporated into the clinical decision. Such an approach not only enhances patient satisfaction but also minimizes misunderstandings and legal exposure (Elwyn et al., 2012). The SDM model thus provides a mechanism for building trust, ensuring ethical compliance, and aligning medical interventions with the patient’s goals, ultimately promoting safer and higher-quality healthcare outcomes.

Ethical Guidelines for Prevention

To prevent future incidents akin to the case under review, healthcare organizations should establish clear ethical guidelines emphasizing informed consent, diligent documentation, and ongoing patient communication. Guidelines should mandate continuous professional development in communication skills and ethical standards, fostering a culture of accountability (Levine et al., 2011). Moreover, instituting peer review systems and regular audits can identify potential lapses early and reinforce ethical behavior among clinicians (Epstein et al., 2010). Ethical guidelines should also advocate for a patient-centered approach, encouraging clinicians to prioritize transparency and respect for individual patient preferences. Such protocols would serve as preventative tools, reducing the likelihood of malpractice and enhancing overall care quality.

Accountability of Ethical Guidelines

Implementing these ethical guidelines ensures accountability at multiple levels. Healthcare providers adhering to robust ethical standards demonstrate professionalism and commitment to patient well-being while being accountable to their peers and professional bodies (Ginsburg et al., 2012). Compliance with ethical guidelines fosters trust with patients and the public, reinforcing the integrity of healthcare institutions. Furthermore, transparent adherence to ethical standards aligns with legal requirements and creates a framework for continuous improvement. By holding practitioners accountable for following established ethical practices, the healthcare system can better safeguard patient rights, reduce malpractice occurrences, and uphold societal trust in medical professionals.

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
  • Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., ... & Barry, M. (2012). Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361–1367.
  • Ginsburg, L. R., Norton, P. G., & Perri, M. (2012). Transforming health care about quality improvement. JAMA, 308(14), 1431–1432.
  • Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Kant, I. (2019). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Paton, Trans.). Harper & Brothers. (Original work published 1785)
  • Levine, R. J., Ubel, P. A., & Lipschutz, R. (2011). The ethics of health care reform: What is the role of health care professionals? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(6), 321–324.
  • Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in primary care: The margins of validity and the essentials of clinical practice. Medical Decision Making, 17(3), 307–319.
  • Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Lesser, C. S., & Stange, K. C. (2010). Patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing. Annals of Family Medicine, 8(4), 345–353.
  • Aristotle. (2014). Nicomachean Ethics (J. A. K. M. Wright, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 4th century BC)

Related Assignments