Abstract
Effective managers must understand the necessary ethical and legal principles that can influence workplaces. Also, the legal relationship between an organization and its customers is worth paying attention to. Ethical behaviors are right to do what is right or wrong or that which is required by law. As such, they must be adequately described and revisited routinely to keep organization practices in the right shape. The Healthcare industry is such as sector fraught with a hard situation that mostly involves ethical dilemmas. The human resource department has a vital role in creating awareness of laws, policies, or regulations of an institution to all employees. The health care system in states like the US is heavily regulated by laws that vary across or within area or operation. Medical service providers, care recipients, those who pay for care, and involved boards are all affected by laws. The paper examines a case study scenario that involves the violation of rules within a healthcare facility.
Health institutions and practitioners are required to operate with the utmost awareness of the existing regulations. For the general public, it can be an overwhelming thing to locate and understand all regulations, laws, or policies that relate to the health industry. Rules have significant and relevant functions in care protection or coverage. Having numerous regulatory agencies keep the public from health hazards and provide welfare programs. Not only are policies or law carried by the local or federal government but also applies in private groups. The primary objective is to deliver safe care to every patient who accesses or availed with health programs. The purpose of this paper is to analyze a case study and respond to questions regarding the scenario presented.
Q1. O’Hare’s obligation to the board was to serve as a leader committed to following what policies require, to shape an organization into an environment free from conflict of interest. The hospital by law defines an interested person as someone within a leadership position, member of a committee or governing body with financial motives. When a person has an interest in respect to an entity in the care system, then he or she is declared as an interested individual with regards to al entities in health care delivery. When the person is declared an interested individual, it signifies other motives that compromise a conflict of interest whereby the primary goal to protect the health needs of patients. In this case, Brian O’Hare had an obligation to Child’s Hospital under by-laws to help ensure nothing comes between achieving the healthcare goals. Ironically, he violated the policies.O’Hare had a duty to disclose his existence of financial interest, and according to the hospital by-laws, he would have had a chance to reveal material facts with a governing board. Once the financial interests are disclosed, the right protocols would have been followed to tell the existence of a conflict of interest, and this includes discussing and voting upon.
Child Hospital’s goal is to meet the needs of patients and see them to recovery as with any other a not-for-profit facility. Delivering quality care to patients is a primary goal, but Mr. O’Hare’s financial interest as a secondary goal resulted in a conflict. His competing interests can make it challenging to resume professional duties as a member of the board of directors of Childs Hospital.
Q2. Yes, I think Stephen A. should be disciplined by the NYS department of health, for witnessing and participating in a policy breach, which resulted in the death of a patient. The physician acted unethically, participated in actions of purchasing unproved products without consulting with the seniors.Stephen A was aware of that Child’s Hospital has not proved the effectiveness of pharmaceutical products for three years and nor permitted the buying. However, he decided to sign the contract anyway without approval from the hospital’s CEO or the medical director. Child’s hospital cannot be held responsible for the loss incurred, but the staff physician is answerable after conducting practices against the polices. Initially, Stephen A questioned the moral conduct of O’Hare but acted unethically anyway by doing what even himself thought was wrong. Physicians are required as per their codes of ethics to report medical errors even if the admission would expose them to liability. The force of law ought to back up the common-sense, ethical requirement, and acknowledge that failure to do so is termed as misconduct.
Q3. Whether healthcare facilities should vicariously be held liable for misconduct by caregivers is a complicated issue that depends on sates laws. However, generally, the court looks ta the factors such as precise employment terms between the healthcare facility and service providers. Also, how much control the organization has over the care giver’s job situation or performance can be held as a factor. The potential issue presented to Child’s Hospital after the conduct of Stephen A. includes loss of credibility of reputation, lawsuits, loss of trust from patients or employees, or legal fines. The CEO, in this case, Donna N., is responsible for the day to day operations of the Child’s Hospital. As such, a potential issue facing this person after staff misconduct may be loss of job position or suspension for not keeping up with daily monitoring of operations. In that way, it can be held that the CEO missed keeping trace of processes happening within the organization. Kathy L., on the other hand, as a medical director by faces potential license suspension for not consulting with physicians on the proper administration of drugs. Typically, it can be assumed Kathy neglected close monitoring and consultation with physicians, leaving them to make decisions that are beyond their role.
In conclusion, healthcare policies and laws are formulated to keep organizations and staff focused on seeing the goal of delivering quality care to patients. In case of misconduct, liability exposure and claims are not cut and dried matter. In other words, physicians, medical groups, as well as professional associations, can be held responsible for the conduct of another in one’s offense.