The Concept of Nursing Standard - Research Paper Example

Section/# APIC: "Ethical" duty to man HCW flu shots. . Hospital Infection Control & Prevention, 10-12. Fabian, N. (2006).H5N1: A Special Report -- What is the threat and why should the environmental health profession be concerned? (Cover story). Journal Of Environmental Health, 68(6), 46-63. This particular article is useful in that it helps to open the debate concerning how useful the avian flu shot is with respect to prevented illness in those that take it. As even the casual observer knows, the many different strains of the flu that exist each and every year make the creating of the flu shot something of a guessing game. However, for purposes of the article in question, the researchers attempt to answer how useful the flu shot is from a broad perspective of its ability to positively affect overall shareholder health. Moreover, the article makes a case for the manner in which the HCW (healthcare workers) should engage with the notion of the flu shot as a means to bolster their own health as well as provide for the safety and health of the patients they come in contact with. As such, the dual nature of the way in which healthcare workers must engage with this issue has to do not only with their responsibility to their own health but the responsibility they share with their profession and the individuals that rely on their careful attention to promoting healthcare best practices by ensuring they are as disease free as possible so as not to infect any of the patients they come into contact with. Clinical digest. Nurses more likely to take flu vaccination if they believe there will be a personal benefit. (2011). Nursing Standard, 26(12), 17. This article approaches the topic of healthcare workers obtaining flu vaccines from the perspective of gain that a potential flu shot might bring to the worker. In this way, the article discusses the construct of a dual paradigm that exists between the healthcare worker actively wanting to immunize themselves as opposed to the perceived gain that they might experience from this due to a reduced risk of infection from incoming patients. In this way, the article brings to the reader’s attention that although all nurses must swear the Hippocratic Oath, the fact of the matter is that selfish motivations still continue to define the manner in which healthcare professionals engage with decisions that should attempt to balance both the needs of the individual and the concern for patient health. In this way, the full breadth and scope of the issue is seen as something that must either be incumbent upon the individual healthcare professional or would necessarily need to be mandated by the entity which employs them. As the authors note, both alternative measures have their distinct drawbacks. Firstly, with respect to the employer mandating such a course of action, a host of legal issues would dominate such a choice. Secondly, with respect to the individual themselves being responsible for self-administration, the degree to which this would actually occur may be insignificant. Evans, G., & Marill, M. (2012). A house divided: A muddled mandate on health care worker flu shots goes to HHS. Hospital Infection Control & Prevention, 39(3), 25-30. This particular article discusses the legal difficulties surrounding employer mandated flu shots. As previously discussed, when an employer mandates such a course of action, they are acting in the best interest of the patients they will be serving; however, many issues arise in forcing a given employee to take such a course of action. No the least of these issues is the fact that by demanding such an action from their shareholders, health care management is oftentimes venturing into the gray zone of what an employer can require of its employees. Due to the host of new healthcare legislation that has recently been passed in the form of HIPPA and FMLA, the extent to which employers can be involved in the medical practices of their employees is severely restricted. However, the case of mandatory flu shots, as these authors argue, is confused by the fact that the needs of the patient and the needs of the employee must be equally considered and a type of medium must be agreed upon. As a means to affect such an end, the authors argue that the better solution would be seek to actively engage and educate all shareholders as to the many positive externalities that could be effected by a widespread campaign for flu shots. Evans, G. (2012). OSHA strongly opposes feds move to mandatory flu shots for HCWs. Hospital Infection Control & Prevention, 39(2), 13-18. The author of this article goes into a greater degree of employment law with regards to the legality of requiring employees to obtain a flu shot as a term of employment within a given healthcare provider. As the nature of the flu shot itself exhibits a small degree of risk, it is only fair to assume that the flu shot, if administered to a large group of employs in various professions, would necessarily affect some small percentage of these employees adversely and cause them to have negative reactions/side effects. Accordingly, such a negative outcome necessarily relates directly back to the OSHA laws that govern workplace safety within the United States. As such, considering this low incidence of occurrence as a function of determining the overall level of good that such a practice/implementation might bring is necessary to being able to serve a determined judgment with regards to systemically being able to implement such a practice. Furthermore, the author relates the even a low occurrence of negative side effects makes the implementation of a mandatory flu shot a primary issue with relation to OSHA and the laws surrounding it. Moreover, any research that is conducted on the topic must necessarily consider all implications that such a mandatory employment demand may espouse as a means of understanding the true nature of the law and of the health drawbacks associated with such a plan. Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Toscani, L., & Despointes, S. (2009). Determinants of Flu Vaccination among Nurses: The Effects of Group Identification and Professional Responsibility. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(1), 42-58. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00381.x So far, the annotated bibliography has dealt with key concerns regarding the level to which a mandatory flu vaccination campaign effects healthcare works, employers, and the law. However, the source above, “Determinants of Flu Vaccination among Nurses: The Effects of Group Identification and Professional Responsibility” helps to relate the extent to which group psychology makes a profound impact on whether shareholders agree to submit themselves to a mandatory vaccination program or not. Regardless of the determinants that have thus far been discussed, this particular article seeks to focus the causal understanding and acceptance/rejection of mandatory vaccination as a function of human group behavior. The authors discuss the nature of how individuals within the healthcare profession can have a profound impact on their co-workers as a means of group identification with regards to either an acceptance or rejection of mandatory flu vaccination program. In this way, this particular article helps to approach the issue from sociological and psychological standpoints of how shareholders identify with key information and seek to incorporate their own values and beliefs into the group dynamic that oftentimes emerges within the healthcare profession. Moreover, the level and extent to which the group can be influenced to achieve the betterment of the healthcare provider is a useful aspect of the topic to know and understand. HIN1 vaccine could heighten calls for mandatory flu shots for health workers: 'swine flu' debacle of 1976 may undermine response. (2009). Hospital Infection Control & Prevention, 36(8), 85-89. This particular article is useful in understanding the pressure and sense of urgency that healthcare professionals viewed the swine flu outbreak of 2009. Rather than being a standardized push for a new engagement with healthcare professionals as far as seeking to vaccinate shareholders against the seasonal flu, the article deals with the H1N1 strain that was posing such a presumed threat to the health of the planet back in 2009. As such, this unique strain of the flu helped to provide a lens through which the researcher can understand the ways in which mandatory vaccinations were understood a time of dire worry and concern regarding the way that this particular strain of the flu might impact the population that would be infected and/or exposed to it. Additionally, this article is useful in understanding the level to which medical community sought to weight the cost/benefit ratio of mandating a flu shot for all healthcare professionals versus not mandating it. In this way, the article includes a type of comparison between the risks of implementing a broad and overarching vaccination directive among healthcare providers and the benefits that such an action would necessarily entail. Finally, the authors argue that the most rational approach at the given juncture would be to take the safest route possible and due to the unknown severity of the strain of the flu that was developing they advocated vaccination on a systemic level. Mandated flu shots? Some staff say no thanks. (2010). Hospice Management Advisor, 15(10), 117. The preceding article discusses the issue surrounding the negative side effects of the flu vaccine as expressed by a case study of healthcare professionals in the hospice profession. Due to the fact that this article helps to engage the reader on the view of many healthcare professionals that are outside of the realm of what one might consider as the typical nurse; oftentimes performing house calls and visiting patients in a more remote environment, the article is helpful in understanding the way that a diverse array of healthcare professionals engage the topic based upon their belief in overall exposure Whereas many of the other articles that have thus far been examined have been concentric upon the ways in which key shareholders have approached the issue of mandatory vaccinations due to the fact that the healthcare professionals in this particular article are from a different line of work and can add a unique perspective to the argument which has already been discussed. What is additionally interesting and worth noting is that due to the type of patients that these healthcare professionals engage and interact with, the level to which the healthcare professional risks transmission of the flu virus is of somewhat lessened importance. In this way, this particular article helps to paint a valuable difference between the needs of certain healthcare professionals to receive mandatory vaccinations as opposed to others. MARTIN, S. (2011). Nurses' ability and willingness to work during pandemic flu. Journal Of Nursing Management, 19(1), 98-108. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01190.x With regards to this article, the author discusses the fact that many healthcare professionals, nurses specifically, have a high level of concern with regards to their susceptibility to key strains of season sickness. As such, members of this community will oftentimes use vacation time or other forms of leave to avoid coming into work as a way of avoiding key exposure to the very illnesses that their profession demands they treat. These fears of the pandemics that are increasingly common as a result of our globalized world also help to define the actions and reactions of an entire sector of healthcare professionals as evidenced by the author of this particular article. The author goes on to help to draw a unique inference to the fact that a standardized and mandatory vaccination program would assist all parties involved in seeking to mitigate the effects of the healthcare professional’s desire to leave the job or to work during peaks of pandemic. Furthermore, the author goes on to conclude that instituting a broad and overarching campaign of flu vaccination would actually work to improve employee turnout even while considering the low levels of risk associated with such a vaccine. In conclusion, the perceptions of shareholders are considered as a means to affect a change in healthcare administration via weighing whether such a program would be beneficial to both shareholders and patients in the long run. Rickers, B. (2011). Pressure builds for mandated flu shots. Same-Day Surgery, 35(4), 40-41. The above article deals with the high number of premature deaths that take place around the nation and the world as a function of the level of infection and flu related illnesses that oftentimes strike the weakest members of the medical community; the patients themselves. As a high number of the most at-risk individuals are already in the hospital or primary care facility to recover from a debilitating healthcare incident, their immune systems are invariably lowered and weakened to the point that fighting up a powerful illness such as an enhanced strain of the flu would bee too much for such patients. Due to this fact, a high number of deaths in hospitals and primary care facilities due to the flue and other illnesses result on a daily basis. As a means of retarding the spread of such infections, an obvious means by which to do so would be to require mandatory immunizations/vaccinations among healthcare staff. However, as the previous annotated entries have noted, such a course of action is hard to affect without the direct support of nearly every shareholder within the process. As such, this particular article attempts to engage the reader and key shareholders within the process as a function of appealing to the fact that without an actionable plan to correct such high death rates associated with the seasonal flu, high death rates in primary care facilities would likely continue. Tzeng, H., & Yin, C. (2006). Nurses' Fears and Professional Obligations Concerning Possible Human-to-Human Avian Flu. Nursing Ethics, 13(5), 455-469. doi:10.1191/0969733006nej893oa This article seeks to approach the topic of healthcare provider vaccination against the common flue from a very wide perspective. Whereas the other articles that have thus far been presented have helped to shed light on key aspects of patient health, caregiver health, OSHA and employment laws, side effects, and unique trends that are defining the way in which the healthcare community engages with this topic, this particular article attempts to draw an inference on the topic by weighing nearly all of these factors in seeking to determine what the best approach for the healthcare community as a whole as well as the individual caregivers themselves might entail. As a means to this end, the authors seek to lay out what can only be understood to be a firm rubric that ways the total ethical implications of each plan of action/inaction and from this helps to engage the reader with the root ethical concerns that both vaccination and non-vaccination might entail. In this way, the article helps to give a balanced yet insightful view into the issue on aggregate; rather than merely examining it from the standpoint of a single shareholder or group of shareholders. Furthermore, the article points to the fact that vaccination can be a necessary means to accomplish best practices of healthcare administration; however, the individual concerns of the employee must necessarily be accounted for prior to instituting any such plan. Read More