Equality and Diversity - Discrimination within the Provision of Healthcare - Essay Example

?Introduction: One of the current points of contention that exists within the world of healthcare provision is with regards to what level of diversity should ultimately be represented. Although there are few individuals who are in disagreement that diversity is in and of itself a net positive and able to benefit the firm/organization in question by helping it to be more representative of the natural environment in which operates, it is difficult to calm to a definitive definition with regards to what level of diversity should be represented within a given organization/firm. As a function of seeking to understand define this complex topic, the following analysis will draw a level of inference with regards to age diversity should be defined and what level should ultimately be represented within a standard operation. It is the hope of this author that such an identification and understanding be helpful in further defining diversity and exposing the level of age discrimination that is currently exhibited in so many firms around the world. Overview of Issues and Definitions: Although there are currently many definitions of what diversity ultimately means, for purposes of this brief analysis, it will be defined as the extent and level to which the organization/entity in question is able to effectively represent the realities of the environment within which it operates (Kellers 154). Ultimately, such a definition implies that diversity in an of itself should be a means by which the organization seeks to reflect the racial, ethnic, and religious realities of both the market that it seeks to compete within and the population that it draws from stop in such a way, such a broad definition allows for this level of diversity not only impact upon the way in which healthcare provision is conducted within a particular region but also have far-reaching applications with regards to how individuals interact with and represent those populations with which they seek to provide healthcare solutions for (Ibrahim 3). Analysis of the NHS and Available Mechanisms/Legislation to Reduce Ageism/Discrimination and Promote Equality As the complexity of the nursing world has only increased, so too has the level of competition and demands that are exhibited on providers throughout the market. This pressure coalesces into forcing these providers to seek to cut costs in almost each and every identifiable manner (Higgins 15). Not surprisingly, one of the main determinants for why age discrimination takes place within the current environment has to do with the fact that providers are able to save a great deal of money by forcing out more seasoned, experienced, and expensive individuals to be replaced by younger and cheaper overhead costs (Kmietowicz 994). Alternately, even those individuals who have not yet been employed are oftentimes passed over due to the fact that the employer determines that they will likely command a higher price than their younger counterparts. Even though such discrimination is ultimately illegal, the fact of the matter is that it is oftentimes impossible to prove; thereby encouraging some to engage tacitly in the practice in the knowledge that they will not likely be caught and in the hopes of garnering a further level of profitability in the future (Hossen & Westhues 1090). Another core rational that individuals within the healthcare profession oftentimes engage as a means of discriminating against an older a demographic is with regards to the financial cost that these individuals are likely to incur with respect to increased absences and/or health insurance reasons (Briscoe 9). Naturally, the same concerns oftentimes contribute to discriminating against women; due to the belief that women will be more likely to be absent; attending to their sick children, on maternity leave, or generally being predisposed to being caregivers in a number of different situations. Naturally, the veracity of all of these beliefs is subject to a great deal of debate; however, the point of this analysis is not to point to whether or not these statements are fact – but rather to draw the focus of the reader to the fact that these groups are unfairly treated (Harrison 5). As a function of the need for increased levels of legislation to safeguard the patient from the threat of discrimination, the NHS has implemented several legal safeguards to reducing the prevalence of discrimination in all of its forms. One of the first legislative mechanisms that has been engaged is with regards to the 2010 Equality Act (Phillips 607). This particular act safeguards the individual from being discriminated against based upon any of the following metrics: race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, caring responsibilities, religion or belief, being transsexual, being pregnant or having just given birth, and being married or in a civil partnership (Davies 51). It must be understood that the Equality Act was not the first step in reducing or outlawing discriminatory practices within the NHS; rather, many of the existing laws that had been in place prior to 2010 were co-opted and established under the umbrella of the Equality Act (Quinters 5). In such a way, this provided for something of a more readily defined and easily referenced approach to understanding the roles and responsibilities that the NHS engendered with respect to the ultimate provision of care to a wide range of individuals (Heuvel & Santvoort 292). Age discrimination was specifically expanded upon in a 2012 ruling by the Home Office that sought to reduce the assumptive nature that many healthcare professionals engaged the patients with (Dowd 3). Further expansions within the 2012 protocol specifically warned against automatically assuming that an individual of an older demographic was not capable of signing or understanding a contract without the help of a younger person and making assumptions with respect to whether an older or younger patient should be referred for a specific type of treatment (Griffith 299). Similarly, the Equality and Diversity Act of 2012 allowed the individual stakeholder in society to have the legal tools necessary to file suit against the NHS if they had sufficient grounds to believe that they were discriminated against for any of the previous reasons which have been mentioned (Cullier 44). Although the new rules allowed for a liberalization of the reasons for why the NHS could be sued by the general population, the understanding for broadening this rubric was the belief that such an action would necessarily make the system more equitable and allow for a greater degree of transparency and certainty among stakeholders within the NHS that each and every decision that they engaged was merited and warranted by extant and relevant medical diagnosis rather than personal bias and/or opinion. Whereas the previous levels of analysis have focused upon the degree and extent to which age discrimination is oftentimes practiced and for what reasons, it must also be understood that one of the motivating factors for age discrimination does not revolve around the overall costs that these individuals might incur for the entity or the amount of time that they are likely to be absent from work. Rather, it is broadly believed, mostly incorrectly, that older individuals are incapable of changing with the times, bringing new ideas to the table, or generally evolving with the shifting needs of the world (Geisel 20). A litany of information researched on this topic points to the fact that aside from the monetary issues which have already been listed as an impetus for age discrimination, pervasive and tacit levels of discrimination are based upon the stereotypes that have thus far been presented. Naturally, even though these stereotypes may be true in some certain number of cases, the broad majority of age discrimination within the NHS is not contingent upon employment; rather it is with regards to the manner in which healthcare is distributed. Due to the fact that the NHS represents a universal level of healthcare coverage for all members of society, the impacts and general importance with which the stakeholders within the system should approach age discrimination from the standpoint of providing care. Ageism, the broad all encompassing term for age discrimination, is specifically referenced in the 2012 guidance with regards to the NHS (Rayner 30). Specifically, the guidance demands that a ban is imposed upon using age as a discriminating factor with respect to service provision; unless such treatment is objectively justified. Such a caveat, although seemingly disconcerting, is ultimately aimed at giving the NHS a way out with respect to providing healthcare professionals the objectivity to allow for the provision of certain procedures and measures to some individuals and not others; although this must be agreed upon by a number of different healthcare professionals and deemed medically motivated and in the best interprets of the system as well as the individual in question (Smith et al. 84). More importantly, the NHS guidance, points to the ban on discriminating any service, victimizing any individual, or harassing any person based upon age related factors. Naturally, such a focused ban extends to the many other areas of discrimination and provision of care that the NHS should be responsible for. Although the policies, best practices, and general guidance that has thus far been defined is useful, it must be understood that it still a long way from effecting an actionable and appropriate mechanism for reducing discrimination and ageism within the structure of the NHS and/or within the structure of healthcare provision (Wait 27). Ultimately, in order for a more effective policy to be evidenced, a more realistic delineation of expectations and repercussions for deviation from these guidelines must be represented within the system. Furthermore, from the standpoint of implementing good policies, it must be understood that the NHS has definitively sought to perform due diligence with regards to the issue of discrimination and ageism by being proactive and seeking to address these issues prior to any of them being evidenced within the general population to a greater degree than is already noted (Abners 13). A weakness of this approach is the fact that the ultimately onus for the decision making within the NHS and the degree and extent to which discrimination and ageism should be minimized is placed upon the individual stakeholder; not expanded out to management personnel with the directive to ensure that key levels of implementation can be ensured. Naturally, this all points back to the previously mentioned issue regarding the lack of metrics and measurable inference from which application of these standards can be inferred (Rinsby 3). Lastly, with regards to a possible solution to this shortcoming, it must be noted that the most actionable way of effecting this would be to impose a rigid set of criteria that is helpful in ameliorating ageism/discrimination by clearly delineating what defines such practices and how the managerial decision making structure within the NHS can be leveraged (Lornsby 4). Although the current plan does at least touch tangentially on these areas, it falls far short of providing a reasonable plan for integrating the entire apparatus and therefore allows for too wide a level of inference to be placed upon the individual stakeholder; allowing for a situation in which personal value judgments can factor too largely into the ultimate provision of care and the means through which the NHS integrates with the end patient (Oliver 3400). Conclusion: From the information that has thus far been presented, it can definitively be noted that the current exhibition of the NHS provides a great deal of information with regards to seeking to reduce ageism and overall discrimination within the provision of healthcare and the day to day operations it engages. However, with that being said, the prior discussion that has been engaged with respect to the failures of the recent guidelines to provide a definitive rubric through which the healthcare professional can follow is the greatest shortcoming. As a means of solving this issue, it is not only necessary to provide such a rubric and the determination of best practices but also to integrate these understandings within extant training and provide a categorical re-interpretation/discussion into the ways in which ageism and/or discrimination can be witnessed within the course of work. Only through such a determination can the individual healthcare professional come to realize the ways in which ageism and discrimination are able to impact upon their own services and the way in which the NHS functions as a whole. Works Cited Abners, Gary. "Ban On Age Discrimination In The NHS." Healthcare Counselling & Psychotherapy Journal 13.1 (2013): 4. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Briscoe, Candy. "In Brief." Pulse 72.22 (2012): 9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Cullier, Elizabeth. "Latent Age Discrimination In Mental Health Care." Mental Health Practice 8.6 (2005): 42-45. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Davies, Nicola. "Reducing Inequalities In Healthcare Provision For Older Adults." Nursing Standard 25.41 (2011): 49-55.CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Dowd, Adrian. "Too Old For Surgery?." Technic: The Journal Of Operating Department Practice 4.2 (2013): 2-4. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Geisel, Jerry. "Retiree Health Saga Ends With EEOC Rule. (Cover Story)." Business Insurance 42.1 (2008): 1-21. Business Source Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Griffith, R. "The Equality Act 2010: Strengthening Legislation." British Journal Of Healthcare Management 16.6 (2010): 298-302. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Heuvel, Wim, and Marc Santvoort. "Experienced Discrimination Amongst European Old Citizens." European Journal Of Ageing8.4 (2011): 291-299. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Harrison, Sarah. "'Age Discrimination In The NHS Is Still Rife'." Nursing Older People 19.2 (2007): 5. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Higgins, Chistina. "Out For Consultation." Nursing Management - UK 16.9 (2010): 15. Business Source Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Hossen, Abul, and Anne Westhues. "Improving Access To Government Health Care In Rural Bangladesh: The Voice Of Older Adult Women." Health Care For Women International 32.12 (2011): 1088-1110. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Ibrahim, Mustafa. "More Transparency To Drive Up NHS Safety." Operating Theatre Journal 266 (2012): 3. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Kellers, Abigail. "Ageist Attitudes Also Rife Among Nurses... 'Age Discrimination Is Still Rife In NHS And Social Services' (Vol 11(2): 76)." British Journal Of Nursing 11.3 (2002): 154. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Kmietowicz, Zosia. "Health Secretary Promises To Outlaw Ageism From The NHS." BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition) 339.7728 (2009): 994. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Lornsby, Olena. "NHS Launches Non-Ageist Redundancy Pay Arrangements." Personnel Today (2006): 4. Business Source Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Oliver, David. "Age Based Discrimination In Health And Social Care Services." BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 339.(2009): b3400.MEDLINE. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Phillips, Adele. "Smoking Cessation: Promoting The Health Of Older People Who Smoke." British Journal Of Community Nursing17.12 (2012): 606-611. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Quinters, Roger. "Cancer Charity's Film Shows How 'Age Is Just A Number'." Nursing Older People 25.1 (2013): 5. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Smith, Joanne, Trish Brown, and Michelle Powell. "Aps In The Nursing Home: Caring For Those At The End Of Life." British Journal Of Healthcare Assistants 7.2 (2013): 82-87. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Rayner, Claire. "Will The NHS Still Want Me When I'm 65?." New Statesman 128.4432 (1999): 30. Business Source Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Rinsby, Terrence. "Age Should Not Affect Surgery - Report." Operating Theatre Journal 266 (2012): 3. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Wait, S. "From Age Discrimination To Age Equality In Health Care: A European Overview." Working With Older People: Community Care Policy & Practice 10.1 (2006): 26-29. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Read More