Interprofessional team working in healthcare delivery - Essay Example

?INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAM WORKING IN HEALTHCARE DELIVERY Corse Gross p. 17) observed that, inter-professional team work in health care sector is the key strategy in the modern health renewal. It is currently the top mind issue in many health care professionals and policy makers (Meads and Ashcroft 2005, p. 23). Mutual team work and collaborative care have rapidly improved the health care operations and service delivery in many health care centers (Barrett and keeping, 2005, p. 40). Inter-professional team work is very effective in improving the patient health safety and heath care services (Barrett and keeping, 2005, p. 40). Inter-professional team work has reduced the backlog and burn out associated with inadequate health professionals (Barrett and keeping, 2005, p. 40). Inter-professional team work is also responsible of reducing the professional workloads and patient morbidity (Department of health 2010, p. 324). With effective inter-professional team work in health care institutions, health care professionals enjoy job satisfaction. Patient and patient caretakers need to be involved squarely in the treatment process (Zwarenstein 2008, p. 67). Their ideas and opinions are excitedly valuable and relevant in the diagnosis and treatment process (Barrett and keeping, 2005, p. 40). The core purpose of selecting the Tom case is to expound on the dangers associated with lack of inter-professional team work in the healthcare setting. The case portrays some of the very sensitive ethical and legal issues which should be the base line in designing professional legislations and policies (Cohen 2007, 340). The 20 years old Tom died out of aspiration pneumonia and reflux oesophagistis. The disease was diagnosed long time ago and measures to rectify the problem recommended. The entire concerned professionals in the hospital were not committed and willing to take prompt actions on the Toms’ health condition .The parent (Tom’s parents) concern over Tom’s pain was not listened to by the relevant health professionals. Tom was also infected with multiple learning disabilities which forced him to attend a special school. In the school, the parents raised concern over their child future but no action was taken by the school administration. The reluctance of the health professionals and the school to cooperate with Tom’s parent raised some ethical and legal issues. Ethical and Legal Issues There are several health ethical principles that are relevant in Tom’s case (Glasby 2007, p. 78). To start with, the main obligation of the health care professionals in Tom’s case was purely to protect his health and life (Prescott 2006, p 90). In this case, the hospital professionals never complied with their core obligation. According to the Department of health (2006, p. 69), under this ethical principle, the health professionals are expected to validate the method of risk evaluation and protection, come up with the most appropriate protection measure and monitor the implementation process. In Tom’s case, the health professionals were reluctant in complying with this principle. After investigating, the gastroenterologists failed to take any action in curing the detected risk. On the other hand, the involved health professional did not follow up Tom’s case after recommending further investigation. They (health professionals) in this case seem to rest their cases after recommending further investigation. Ignorance of the health professionals to their obligation ethical principle was the core cause of his death. There was very limited professional cooperation in Tom’s cases. Health professionals are guided by the principle of cooperation and coordination in complicated and complex issues (Hall 2010, p. 835). They (junior health professionals) are supposed to inform the senior health professionals of any complicated cases and the measures underway to address the cases (Mager 2008, p. 521). Under this principle, the health professionals are expected to refer the cases to the most competent person in their area of jurisdiction (Mager 2008, p 521). After referral, follow up is definite. This was not the scenario in Tom’s cases (Mager 2008, p. 521). Lack of coherent cooperation on the Tom’s case among health professionals facilitated his death. The required cooperation among the health professional in the hospital were insufficient. On the hand, health professional were less committed to work together with Toms parents. These health professionals were not willing to work together with the social health officers in the residential special school in rescuing Tom’s mental problem as provided for by mental Acts. Consent to treat was very essential principle in addressing Toms health problem (Pollard, Sellman, and senior 2005, p. 90). In reference to the consent of treatment principle, the client or the client closest person is expected to sign the consent of treatment form (Charles 2006, p.389). The consent entails the required treatment procedure, risk associated with the treatment, and the benefits of the treatment procedure (Day 2006, p. 67). During the signing process, the health professional in this case were only expected oversees the process (Charles 2006, p.389). The involved health professionals were also expected to give the required clarification and explanation (Temkin- Greeners 2008, p.480). In the case under study, the client parents were not allowed to sign the consent to treat form. To demonstration the magnitude of the health professionals’ violation of this principle, Tom’s parents were not involved in deciding on the best ways of feeding their child (White and Duncan 2010, p. 681). The ethical principle which guides the manner in which minor and mentally ill patient should treated did not exist in this case. Tom’s parents were not squarely involved in the treatment procedure as provided for by the principle (Freeth and reeves 2007, p. 43). They served as core perpetrators but not real actors. The parents were not informed fully on their child health status (White and Duncan 2010, p. 681). The health professional failure to comply with what was expected of them led to a very severe suffering and the ultimate death of Tom. Lack of cooperation between the health professionals necessitated a more than one year pain and suffering for a mentally ill Tom. The young boy was diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia about one year before he died. If the situation was rectified early enough, through proper health professional interaction, the child could not have died. Tom’s mental health problem together with his age allowed for inclusive and exclusive reveal of his health status information to his parents. Tom’s parents were denied information on their child’s health progress. Failure to involve Tom’s parent in the discussion on the best feeding model was pure violation of Tom’s parent basic rights as accorded for in the health care guiding principles (Brown 2010, p. 89). As per the guiding ethics and principles of the health workers, the concerned health professionals in Tom’s cases undervalued some of their mandate. They failed to follow up Toms cases after referring to other professionals. Right from the beginning, health professionals in the hospital ignored this guiding principle. The consequence of their ignorance worsened Tom’s health status. In general, the ignorance of mere ethical principles and guidelines caused the unnecessary death of Tom (MENCAP, 2007, p.23). In Tom’s case, mental health Act 2005 was not fully complied with. The Act applies to every individual involved in the care, treatment and support of people aged 16 years and above and are incapable of making some decisions on their own individual capacity. It is designed to refurbish power to the vulnerable people who lack capacity. All professional are expected to comply with the Act. The Act has a clause which enhances on the importance of guidance to the informal caregivers. The Act also emphasizes on the need to involve every person who is involved in the caring of the mentally handicapped person in the health decision making process. In Tom’s case, his parents who were the core caregivers were not involved in the treatment process. On the other hand, Tom was not given the required support as provided for in the Act. As required by the Act, the health professional declined to grant Tom the heath power he was lacking. Legally, the health professionals who were addressing Tom’s case have a legal responsibility to bear. They are legally answerable to Tom’s death. They failed to comply with the stipulation of the mental health Act 2005. In cases involving treatment of mentally handicapped people, lawyers and legal experts are usually involved. They play a role of ensuring the laid laws are strictly adhered to. Lack of involvement of the lawyer’s in Toms cases was one of the reasons why Toms parents were unable to take any legal action against the involved health professionals. On the other hand, Tom’s parents were properly not aware of the contents of the mental act 2005(MENCAP, 2007, p.40). Inter-Professional Working According to Lin and Liang (2007), the success of an organization is determined by the quality of cooperation between the organizations professionals. In the case under study, interaction and collaboration between the available professionals was very crucial (Barret, Sellman, and Thomas, 2005, p. 200). For them (health professionals) to realize effective operations, interchange of ideas and opinions among various professional was paramount (Barret, Sellman, and Thomas, 2005, p. 203). Mutual coexistence among all health professionals in hospital is very basic and inevitable (Lockhart-wood 2009, p. 280). In this regard, inter-professional collaboration is the incorporation of different professional acquired and inborn knowledge and skills to attain a common goal taking into consideration of the available rules and philosophies (Wheelers, Powelson and Kim 2007, p. 139). The health care services call for collaboration and team work between different professionals in all health departments to achieve their common obligation (Wheelers, Powelson and Kim 2007, p. 139). On the other hand, team work is an open process which in cooperates two or more professionals to accomplish a certain specified goal (Xyrinchis and ream 2008, p. 234). In hospital setting, professionals who anticipate to work as a team must have contemporary back ground, knowledge, and skills. To customaries their outcome, they must have similar objective (Wheelers, Powelson and Kim 2007, p. 139). To get the best collaboration outcome, health professionals in Tom’s case were expected to commit their physical and mental capacity in ensuring superb health services to the boy’s problem (Wheelers, Powelson and Kim 2007, p. 139). Collaboration between different professional is the core agenda in the modern dynamic health care industry (Wheelers, Powelson and Kim 2007, p. 139). Professional beliefs collaboration improves the health care services in hospitals. Health professionals are also for the opinion that, adequate healthcare is the outcome of collaboration, adequate skills and competency in service delivery (Collin 2007, p. 786) In the case of Tom, there was relative inter-professional collaboration. Different professional in the hospital collaborated for the welfare of Tom health. For there to be effective service delivery, health professionals are expected to have a sheer respect, and recognition of the impacts of collaboration (Collin 2007, p. 786). Tom’s case was transferred from one health profession to another during the treatment process. Although their cooperation was no effective, the hospital professional had an understanding of the important of combining their knowledge and skills to get the best outcome. Their referrals were not effective due to lack of consistent follow up. The cooperation of the health professionals in Tom’s case had very many deficient. The health professionals’ interaction deficient necessitated the futility of the entire process. To achieve the best outcome of collaboration, frequent communication is basic and cannot be done away with. Team work should be effective and productive (Collin 2007, p. 786). The productivity of a team is what determines its future existence (Webster 2002, p. 14). To enhance productive team work in the case under study, there was need for adequate coordination of the activities and services delivered from different professionals (Webster 2002, p. 14). There was dire need for an effective and acceptable team leadership in the health centers. Respect within and between different professionals is another important contributor for the success of any inter-professional collaboration (Leathard 2003, p. 40). The respect between inter-professional collaboration in most cases is brought about by the input of different professionals in the team. On the other hand, to demonstrate effective team work, health professionals are expected to accept the credit of their success collectively (Leathard 2003, p. 40). In Tom’s case, the participating health professionals were supposed to accept and take responsibility of their down fall in their service delivery (Leathard 2003, p. 40). Commitment to the team goals and objectives is important to the success of any team (Leathard 2003, p. 40). Commitment in this case has to do with undertaking follow up of the transferred health cases. As matter of fact, communication is power. A team without a well defined communication structures and systems is domed and cannot deliver. Effective communication between different professional is tantamount to effective service delivery (Leathard 2003, p. 40). Working in Partnership Working in partnership entails combining the available resources for attainment of a common objective or goal (Hackman 2010, p. 90). Frequent interaction necessitates harmonious working conditions (Goodman 2010, p. 56). Working in partnership is also facilitated by mutual honor and respect of each partner’s contribution and profession (Goodman 2010, p. 56). In partnership coexistence, compromise of time, resources, and interest are very vital (Devine, 2007, p. 711). In Tom’s case, some of the failures were avoidable if the formal and informal sectors accepted to work together with Toms parents. Tom’s parents concern about their child (Toms) pain was not listened to by the concerned health professionals. If the concerned health professional took Tom’s parent concern seriously, proper diagnosis and treatment could have been administered to prevent extensive suffering which resulted to death. Ignorance of Tom expression of pain in the initial stage of the diseases was the bases of his death. His feelings were not taken seriously by the health professionals. Prompt action on Tom’s feeling was the most profound solution for his health recovery. The deterioration of Tom health resulted from ineffective working partnership between the hospital professionals. They were reluctant to cooperate with Tom’s parents. The health professionals did not consult Tom’s parents on the best ways of feeding Tom. The doctors’ unwillingness to involve Tom’s parents resulted to incorrect feeding methodology. The one minded feeding criteria severely deteriorated Tom’s health. Conclusion In conclusion, inter-professional cooperation is very relevant and very castrating invention. As a matter of fact, no profession is perfect to exist independently. There is always mutual relationship between different professions. In hospital setting, cooperation between the available professionals is the order of the day. Taking into consideration the magnitude of health professional role in the society, one person decision and effort is inadequacy. Various professionals have well agreed and structured principles and ethical standards which guide their daily activities. Some principle can only be applied theoretically but they are not practical in the field. Ethical issues in many professions are brought about by impracticality of some guiding principles. In the case of Tom, there emerged some legal and ethical issues. The death of the young boy was purely brought about by human error and overlooking of some of the laid down principle. On the other hand, inter-professional coexistence has been the main pillar of the success of many organizations and businesses. Different professionals combine their ideas for a concrete outcome. In hospital setting, hospital professionals merge their effort for a common objective. The good inter- professional merger can only be necessitated by effective coexistence and respect among the merging stakeholders. The element which constitutes good team work must be upheld and adhered to accordingly. The Tom’s case has both straight forward and hidden lessons. The case has portrayed the important of team work in the hospital setting. There is also need for prompt action and systematic follow up of the referred cases. The case also shows us the important of the laid down professional ethical guidance. References Barret, G., Sellman, D. and Thomas, J.2005, Interprofessional working in health and social care, perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. PRINT Barrett, G and keeping, C., 2005, The process required for effective inter-professional working: inter-professional working in health and social care, professional perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, M., 2010,Equality and access to general health care for people with learning disabilities, journals of research in nursing, 15 (4), 351-361 Charles, L., 2006, What do we know about health care team effectiveness, Medical care research and review, 23, 239-290. Cohen, S, 2007, What’s makes team work, Journals of management, 23, 238-290 Collins, S., 2005. Explanation in consultation: The combined effectiveness of doctors and nurses communication with patient, Medical education, 39, 785-796 Day, J. 2006, Inter-professional working, expanding nursing and health care practice, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Department of health, 2006, Our health, our care, our say: A new direction for community service, London: department of health. Department of health, 2010, Working together- learning together. A frame for life long learning in the NHS, London: Department of Health. Devine, D, 2007, Teams in organization: Prevalence characteristics and effectiveness, small group research, 30, 678- 711 Freeth, D, and reeves, S. 2007, Learning to work together: Using the presage process and product models to highlight decisions and possibilities, Journals of inter-professional care, 18(1), 43-56 Glasby, J., 2007, Understanding health for all, NHS next stage review final, Norwich: The stationery office. Goodman, B., 2010, Nursing and collaboration, from policy to practice in health and social care, London: Rout ledge. Gross, D., 2012, Team working effectiveness in health care, Birmingham, UK: Aston center for health service organization research. Hall, p., 2010, Interdisciplinary education and team work, Medical education, 35, 867-875. Hackman, J, 2010, Groups that work: Creating condition for effective team work, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lin, L, and Liang, 2007. Addressing the nursing work environment to promote patient safety, Nursing forum, 42, 20-30. Leathard, A., 2003, Nursing and collaborative practice, a guide to interpersonal learning and working, Exeter: learning matters Ltd. Lockhart-wood, K., 2009. Collaboration between nurses and doctors in clinical practices, British journals of nursing, 9, 276-280. Mager, J., 2008. Encyclopedia of occupational health and safety, Geneva: International labor organization. MENCAP, 2007, Death by indifference, London, MENCAP Prescott, P, 2006, Physician- nurses’ relationship, Anal of internal medicine, 103, 127-133. Meads. T and Ashcroft, K.2005, The case for inter-professional collaboration in health and social care, Oxford: Blackwell publishing. PRINT Pollard, K., Sellman, D and senior, B, 2005, The need for inter-professional working. Professional perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Temkin- Greeners, 2008, Measuring inter-displinary team performance in long team care setting, Medical care, 42, 472-480 Webster, J., 2002, Teamwork: Understanding multi- professional working, Nursing older people, 14, (3), 14-19 Wheeler, B, Powelson S., and Kim, J, 2007. Interdisciplinary clinical education, Nurse educators, 32, 136-140 White, L. and Duncan, G., (2010). Foundation of adult health nursing, New York, NY: Cengage learning. Xyrinchis A., and ream, E., 2008. Team work: A concept analysis, Journals of advanced nursing, 61, 232-241 Zwarenstein, M., 2008. Interpersonal education: Effect on practice and health, Oxford: The Cochrane library. Read More