EMTALA Scenario Analysis - Term Paper Example

An Analysis of the Situation From a casual glance, the situation is one that appears simple and dismissible, going by the orthopediatrician’s correspondence. This is because; at a casual glance, the status of the patient which is characterized by a non-displaced, splintable and easily detectable fracture is one that is not serious enough to warrant an emergency. Nevertheless, a critical reflection on the situation makes it clear that it is possible that the case may be complicated enough to warrant a legal suit against the hospital.

This is especially the case if it turns out that the hospital’s orthopediatrician was either being economical with the truth, or read from an inaccurate source. Conversely, it is also possible that the participating hospital (the hospital that intends to transfer the patient) could be trying to refer the patient as a way of dumping the patient. How the Situation Is Impacted By EMTALA The situation, as misty (due to scantiness and contradiction of information) as it is, totally applies to EMTALA mandate.

The place of the participating hospital may be insignificant to the matter at hand. This is because the hospital could be having a deficiency of an emergency department. Secondly, the nature of the fracture is relatively less serious but may be very complicated. This is because to the layman, the fracture is less serious since it is less visible than compound, open and displaced fractures. However, the fact that pain, swelling and stiffness accompany non-displaced fractures is a matter that directly invokes emergency and thereby necessitating the consideration of EMTALA provisions.

According to Bitterman (2011), EMTALA provisions describe medical emergency as a condition that manifests itself by acute and severe symptoms to an extent that failure to administer immediate medical attention places the patient’s health in danger and physiological and anatomical impairment. It is a fact that the non-displaced fracture is causing the patient severe physical pain and will also precipitate swelling and stiffness to the injured arm. Over time, bone and blood infections may ensue as the patient is left untreated.

Nonetheless, despite all of these, the fact that EMTALA applies when there is an individual having a medical emergency, and when a request has been made on behalf of the individual for examination, treatment of a medical condition or both, makes the consideration of the patient more binding. In this case, there is a patient with a fractured arm, alongside a request placed by a participating hospital. Above all, even Levy and Pravikoff (2012) acknowledge that EMTALA stipulates that it matters not that the condition is palpable or perceptible to others or that the patient or the participating hospital is able to adduce evidence of the emergency or not.

This means that the counterargument by the orthopediatrician that the fracture is a non-displaced one and that it can be splinted and seen in the office is neither here nor there. The Decision to Make As the Administrator In the case presented, it will be important to have the patient with the fractured hand referred, even if his fracture seems not to warrant strictly urgent medical attention since it is non-displaced, splintable and easily detectable. The Rationale and Thought Process behind the Process The decision to have the patient referred to the hospital for an emergency treatment is very informed and