Medico Legal Aspects and the Radiographers Scope of Practice - Essay Example

Medico Legal Aspects and the Radiographers Scope of Practice Introduction The UK Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) outlines various standards of proficiency to be considered by registrants. HCPC’s standards of conduct are fundamental to considerations during practice by registrants. Registrants in every professional field in the health care sector must comply with set standards of performance. HCPC also outlines various ethical standards that are applicable in practice by registrants. Standards for prescribing function to regulate practice by registered healthcare professionals in different fields. Contravening the standards set by HCPC is tantamount to violation of laws. The council’s conduct and competence committee provide verdict on practices that contravene HCPC’s set standards (HCPC, 2015). Incorporating the law into the field of medical practices gives an insight into the power of the law. The force of the legislation is perhaps the reason for ethical and professionalism in medical practices. The very laws originate ethical concerns and the expectations that the public places on civil servants. This work examines a court case involving physicians and a patient, where the failure of a doctor to stick to the professional requirements caused harm to the patient. The work depicts the judicial proceedings about health matters and elaborates on the right procedures for handling issues at workplaces. The legislation in this case relates to the examination of the various health policies, which this work also explains. The Proceedings of the Court and the Interpretation of the Health Policies Based on court proceedings, the radiographer failed to perform an X-ray on the patient. The radiographer worked for the Hertfordshire Hospital University Trust, where he was to give instructions to practicing students. The medical practitioner was supposed to be a role model to the pupils in the Radiography Course. The competence that radiographers exhibit the result from the periods of training they undergo. Power can carry out the actions of an occupation to the expected levels during the time for which you work (The University of Exeter, 2015). Training makes the people concerned to be both fit for the purpose and the fit for practice. The scope of professional practice requires that radiographers work using the safest and the most efficient techniques for the patients (Scope of Professional Practice, 2015). The patient in this case scenario was weak, something that the radiographer, Mr. Porter knew. He was instructed to fetch the patient from another ward and realized his inability to walk by himself. He opted to give the patient a wheelchair, which is the best action for those who cannot walk (Long, Frank & Enhrlich, 2012). Such a move is an act of ethics and professionalism, but the matter loses meaning when the same doctor walks into the X-ray room and asks a student to carry out a scan on the patient. At this point during the case, it is vivid that Porter made a mistake he should have avoided. He could have done the scan himself and have the student observe because his training upheld moral values (HCPC, 2015). There are lessons from the proceedings at this point about the way of handling patients. It is evident that if the patients cannot walk on their own, there is a need that a wheelchair helps them. There is also the lesson of allowing the patients their comfort at the hospital (Wiederhold, Riva & Molinari, 1998). The discomfort was too painful for the patient to bear and caused him to topple and fall over while he had pain in his chest. Should Porter have followed the procedures for the safety of the hospital to the latter, the accident would not have happened. The competence guidelines laid by the UK with concern to the training of radiographers caused the medical doctor to face charges (HCPC, 2015). The proceedings of the court reveal that the physician, between the October 16th 2012 and the July 16th 2014, the radiographer violated the competence laws. To be precise, he performed an X-ray on the chest of a weak patient by asking him to stand when he was supposed to receive treatment while seated. The radiographer allegedly ignored instructions from his medical student concerning the patient’s health status. If the radiographer was to exercise competence, he should have weighed the situation and determined on his own, what was the most suitable. He proceeded to make wrong recommendations to the student, which caused the patient to fall over. The doctor failed to meet the levels of competence for which he was trained by failing to honor the instructions in the handling manual for wheelchairs. At this point in the court proceedings, it is clear that one of the skills of using wheelchairs in the hospital is to apply brakes while not moving (Fuzy & Hartman Publishing, 2005). He also did not follow the set procedures for making sitting patients stand. There is a revelation from the testimony by the Radiography Manager that Mr. Porter had last attended a safety and manual usage for equipment held on April 12th 2011 arranged by The University of Hertfordshire Hospital. Such a date was old enough to have the doctor forget instructions in the users’ manual. The hospital could still face charges of negligence on the safety measures while handling medical equipment. The UK government has laid rules against bullying and harassment at the workplace (UK. Gov., 2015). The law is clear on incidences that rank as harassing. The employer or any other party is not to force anyone else into making decisions that they are not willing to do so. The law, therefore, finds the doctor guilty of bullying and harassing the medical student. The doctor instructed the student to report that the brakes of the wheelchair worked, which would give the impression that the physician was no to blame for what happened. Incidences are better handled instantly to minimize the chances of aggravating the condition, which is another point of scrutiny for the doctor. The law requires that the people report incidences as fast as they can, which the radiographer failed to honor (Datix, 2015). The court proceeding revealed that the doctor made the report on June 27, 2014, which was a period too long from the time of the incidence. The report led the doctor to yet another offense. The ethical concern of the doctors, as set the Health and Care Professionals Council (HCPC) requires that the radiographers give honest reports (HCPC, 2015). The doctor gave dishonest information by lying that the brakes of the wheelchair worked by the time the patient stood. The second unethical behavior is the report by the physician that the patient’s health status allowed him to stand and that the incident would probably have happened accidently. In his defense, at the court, Porter does not mention that he witnessed the patient fall. He contradicts the testimony by the student that the doctor instructed the patient to stand off the wheelchair. He gave his reasoning, the fact that the wheelchair was right behind the patient and should he had wanted to sit back, and he would find it. The patient broke his hip in the process, and the instructing radiographer did not allow the student to see what the doctor recorded in the reports. There are yet other lessons from the proceedings of the court concerning the manner of handling matters at the places of work. The first is the way of reporting urgent matters to the relevant authorities, and the second is the act of honesty. There is a need that all the workers uphold high levels of ethical issues because it is a part of the requirements for proper medical practice. The process at the courtroom also shed light on the legal procedures that exist concerning medical personnel (Sanbar & American Legal College of Medicine, 2007). Along the course of the hearing, we learned that there needs to be protocol in handling the matters at the place of work (Petersen, 2013). The radiographer realized he could not handle the case on his own and, therefore, resorted to passing information to the Radiography Manager. The manager did all he could and still found reported the matter to higher authorities. There are legal proceedings for the medical practitioners and the patients, which is the reason for the adjournment of the case for investigation. About the training process, the court is expected to charge the radiographer of acting unethically, unprofessionally and for bullying a junior employee. There is a requirement by the law that training forms the basis of practice. The doctor should not have let the student carry out the scan on a weak patient. Such a case required experience of the older personnel and a student (Annas, 1992). The courtroom scenario is an indicator that for doctors to have the license to practice, they should satisfy the laid standards of competence. Conclusion The law gives a chance for medical personnel to have trials in court basing on the training expectations. This case study hints that some patients may receive treatment from unqualified doctors. Doing such risks the lives of the patients and is against the ethical concerns. The case is also a revelation that some people would do anything to shift blame to others, the radiographer being a perfect suit. There is a need that the wheels of justice roll fast enough to make the victims of such incidents happy that someone cares for them. Handling of equipment requires soberness and careful reading of the user manuals to avoid accidents. The case gives an insight on the interactions of various units into consolidation of the law, without which, some people would not have any rights. The case also provides a reminder of a need for professionalism and competence in practice. References Annas, G. J., & Annas, G. J. (1992). The rights of patients: The basic ACLU guide to patient rights. Totowa, N.J: Humana Press. Campbell, M. J., Walters, S. J., & Machin, D. (2007). Medical statistics: A textbook for the health sciences. Chichester, England: Wiley. Datix. (2015). CRI’s New Approach to Incident Management Goes Beyond Health and Safety Thanks to Datix. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.datix.co.uk/clients/care-homes-home-care-assisted-living/cris-new-approach/ Fuzy, J. L., & Hartman Publishing. (2005). The Nursing Assistant's Handbook. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic. Gallagher, A. G., & O'Sullivan, G. C. (2012). Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation: Principles and Practice. London: Springer. HCPC (2015). Standards of Proficiency-Radiographers. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10000DBDStandards_of_Proficiency_Radiographers.pdf HCPC (2015). Your Duties as a registrant-Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10003B6EStandardsofconduct,performanceandethics.pdf Hope, R. A., Savulescu, J., & Hendrick, J. (2008). Medical Ethics and Law: The Core Curriculum. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. Long, B.W., Frank, E.D., & Enhrlich, R.A. (2012). Radiography Essentials For Limited Practice. London: Elsevier Health Sciences. British Medical Association. Medical Ethics Today: The BMA's Handbook of Ethics and Law. (2012). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Petersen, M. (2013). In Your Lifetime, Follow the Light, Not the Darkness. Trafford on Demand Pub. Rhodes, R. P. (1992). Health Care Politics, Policy, and Distributive Justice: The Ironic Triumph. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sanbar, S. S., & American College of Legal Medicine. (2007). Legal Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier. Society of Radiographers. (2015). Scope of Professional Practice. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.sor.org/learning/document-library/code-conduct-and-ethics/1-scope-professional-practice Stellman, J. M. (1998). Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: 1. Geneva: International Labour Office. Sugarman, J., & Sulmasy, D. P. (2010). Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington: Georgetown University Press. UK.GOV (2015). Workplace Bullying and Harassment. Retrieved January 13, 2015 form https://www.gov.uk/workplace-bullying-and-harassment. University of Exeter. (2015). Competence and Experience Frameworks. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://cedar.exeter.ac.uk/handbook/clinical/competence/ Veatch, R. M. (1997). Medical Ethics. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Wiederhold, B. K., Riva, G., & Molinari, E. (1998). Virtual Environments in Clinical Psychology and Neuroscience: Methods and Techniques in Advanced Patient-Therapist Interaction. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Read More