The medical assistant (MA) is responsible for registering and forwarding the information crucial for differential diagnosis and patient exam. Their failure to deliver the data can lead to severe patient outcomes and disciplinary penalties depending on the internal regulations and the missing mention of crucial details. In the selected case, MA did not notify a nurse practitioner (NP) about a patient’s low blood pressure because they were distracted by the confrontation between the two other employees. The situation signals the collective’s inability to cooperate correctly, and issues in the team can cause the worsening quality of healthcare services and severe patient outcomes (Brain et al., 2017). In the case of MA failing to deliver crucial information to NP, the result could be an incorrect differential diagnosis, prescribing the wrong medication, or making procedures prohibited with low blood pressure.
If harm is done to a patient, all healthcare workers who interacted with them would have to get through ethical and legislative implications. From the ethical perspective, MA’s actions increased the risks of the adverse impact of the services, could cause conflict between physical and patient and violated the moral principle of non-maleficence (Rosen et al., 2018). From the legislative perspective, MA’s implications would be faced if their mistake is proven as the cause of severe patient outcomes (Brain et al., 2017). Penalties depend on the local regulations and the jurisprudence between the healthcare system and the facility where the incident occurred.
NP’s responsibility is significant because of their direct and complex interaction with the patient. Consequently, that representative would be the primary individual to be checked if bad outcomes occur. In the given study, NP is the newest employee, and, considering that the team experiences difficulties in cooperation, they might be blamed for an incident. The practitioner must know their rights and zones of responsibility to avoid irrelevant accusations (Farokhzadian et al., 2018). NP noticed that MA did not timely mention vital conditions, yet if the case were analyzed in retrospect, no evidence of the latter’s mistake would be proven. The case study’s scenario puts a practitioner in dangerous circumstances, and the unhealthy workplace environment, overall stress, and intense outpatient facility load might cause inadequate results.
NP’s work is based on communication with patients and gathering sufficient information for assisting a physician in further treatment. From the ethical perspective, their decision-making must be found on the principles of non-maleficence, efficiency, and beneficence (Farokhzadian et al., 2018). Conflicts among other employees that are risky for patient outcomes might force NPs to act unethically towards their colleagues or provoke challenging situations in their practice. The implications, such as more difficulties working in the team, would appear in the selected study and make a practitioner deal with ethical dilemmas. The legislative aspect of the severe patient outcomes would require clarification with the Board of Nursing and its local representatives (Peter, 2018). They would decide if the NP failed to fulfill their responsibilities in performing exams, recording the symptoms, providing urgent treatment, and delivering the necessary information to physicians. The implications a practitioner might face in the given study are tied to their healthcare system’s legislative departments and might include fines and suspension from working.
Medical doctor (MD), or physician, has significant authority in an outpatient care facility due to their treatment and patient outcomes responsibilities. It is common for MDs to have leadership positions at departments, quality improvement boards, and employees’ unions, making them valuable decision-makers (Manzoor et al., 2019). In the case study’s scenario, MA’s failure to report vital signs could lead to physicians’ doubts or mistakes considering the treatment and the following serious patient outcomes. Consequently, a physician’s actions would be regarded as violating the ethical principles of non-maleficence and health maximization, resulting in inadequate healthcare costs, incorrect prescriptions, and the worsened relationships between them, NPs, and MAs (Manzoor et al., 2019). The implications depend on the severity of the outcomes, yet the primary concern of the selected study is patient safety, underdelivering which can lead to legal penalties.
From the legislative perspective, MDs have a considerable risk of receiving severe warnings and sentences. For instance, a physician&rsqu
Order this paper