Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics

Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics In this assignment you will examine the legal structure and governance of hospitals. Read “Alternatives for Developing a Hospital” (4.1) on pages 57-59 in Contemporary Issues in Healthcare Law and Ethics. In this case study you will explore options available for Jefferson County’s new hospital. Write a 4-5 page report to the Jefferson County Board evaluating each option and provide your recommendation of the type of structure that would best serve the needs of this county. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Your report should address the following substantive requirements: ·Description and assessment of each type of structure (public, nonprofit, and for-profit). Include pros and cons for each type. ·Compare and contrast the three types including advantages and disadvantages for each. Using the table on page 59 of the textbook as a model, create a similar table with your assessment for submission. This table may be included in an appendix section or in the body of your paper, but cannot be longer than one page. It is okay to single-space text in the table. ·Argue your recommendation for your chosen structure that would best serve the needs of this county. Your report should meet the following structural requirements: ·Be 4-5 pages in length, not including the cover or reference pages. ·Be formatted according to APA Requirements. ·Provide support for your statements with in-text citations from a minimum of four (4) scholarly articles. Two (2) of these sources may be from the class readings, textbook, or lectures, but two (2) must be external. ·Utilize the following headings to organize the content in your work. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics ·Introduction ·Description and Assessment ·Compare and Contrast ·Recommendation ·Conclusion hcm515___grading_rubric.pdf contemporary_issues_in_healthcare_law_and_ethics___4th_edition.pdf implementation_of_hospital_governing_boards___views_from_the_field.pdf local_leagal_infrastructure_and_population_health.pdf HCM515 Critical Thinking Rubric – Module 2 Meets Expectation Content, Research, and Analysis 13-15 Points Requirements Includes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment, including length, construction of a report or presentation based on the assigned case study that accounts for the three substantive and four structural requirements provided. 17-20 Points Content Demonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of the materials with respect to the legal structure and governance of hospitals; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources. 17-20 Points Critical Analysis Provides a strong critical analysis and interpretation based on the information given; shows strong critical thinking in comparing types of hospitals. Approaches Expectation Below Expectation Limited Evidence 10-12 Points Includes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 7-9 Points Includes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 4-6 Points Includes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 13-16 Points Some significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. 9-12 Points Major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. 5-8 Points Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials. 13-16 Points Some significant but not major errors or omissions in critical analysis. 9-12 Points Major errors or omissions in critical analysis. 5-8 Points Fails to provide critical analysis and interpretation of the information given. HCM515 Critical Thinking Rubric – Module 2 13-15 Points Problem Solving Demonstrates strong or adequate problem solving skills, applied thought and insight in addressing specific problems in the recommendation section of the assignment. 9-10 Points Sources Cites and integrates at least 4 credible sources as specified in description. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics 9-10 Points Application of Sources well or Source Material adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue; knowledge from the course linked properly to source material. Mechanics and Writing 9-10 Points Demonstrates Project is clearly college-level organized, well proficiency in written, and in organization, proper format as grammar and outlined in the style. assignment. Strong sentence and paragraph structure; few errors in grammar and spelling. 10-12 Points Some significant but not major errors or omissions in problem solving and applied thinking. 7-9 Points Major errors or omissions in problem solving and applied thinking. 4-6 Points Fails to demonstrate problem solving and applied thinking. 7-8 Points Cites and integrates 3 credible sources as specified in description. 7-8 Points Some significant but not major problems with selection and linkage of sources. 5-6 Points Cites and integrates 1 or 2 credible source as specified in description. 5-6 Points Major problems with selection and linkage of sources. 3-4 Points Cites and integrates no credible sources. 7-8 Points Project is fairly well organized and written, and is in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Reasonably good sentence and paragraph structure; significant number of errors in grammar and spelling. 5-6 Points Project is poorly organized; does not follow proper paper format. Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; numerous errors in grammar and spelling. 3-4 Points Project is not organized or well written, and is not in proper paper format. Poor quality work; unacceptable in terms of grammar and spelling. 3-4 Points Source selection is seriously flawed; no linkage to knowledge from the course. HCM515 Critical Thinking Rubric – Module 2 Demonstrates proper use of APA style 9-10 Points Project contains proper APA formatting. Total points possible = 110 7-8 Points Few errors in APA formatting. 5-6 Points 3-4 Points Significant errors in APA formatting. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Numerous errors in APA formatting. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: MatthewDiscussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. PRINTED BY: Matthew Langner . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher’s prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. BMC Health Services Research This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance. Fully formatted PDF and full text (HTML) versions will be made available soon. Implementation of hospital governing boards: views from the field BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:178 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-178 Zahirah McNatt ([email protected]) Jennifer W Thompson ([email protected]) Abraham Mengistu ([email protected]) Dawit Tatek ([email protected]) Erika LinnanderDiscussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics ([email protected]) Leulseged Ageze ([email protected]) Ruth Lawson ([email protected]) Negalign Berhanu ([email protected]) Elizabeth H Bradley ([email protected]) ISSN Article type 1472-6963 Research article Submission date 3 April 2013 Acceptance date 8 April 2014 Publication date 17 April 2014 Article URL http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/178 Like all articles in BMC journals, this peer-reviewed article can be downloaded, printed and distributed freely for any purposes (see copyright notice below). Articles in BMC journals are listed in PubMed and archived at PubMed Central. For information about publishing your research in BMC journals or any BioMed Central journal, go to http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/ © 2014 McNatt et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. Implementation of hospital governing boards: views from the field Zahirah McNatt1 Email: [email protected] Jennifer W Thompson1 Email: [email protected] Abraham Mengistu2 Email: [email protected] Dawit Tatek1 Email: [email protected] Erika Linnander1 Email: [email protected] Leulseged Ageze3 Email: [email protected] Ruth Lawson4 Email: [email protected] Negalign Berhanu5 Email: [email protected] Elizabeth H Bradley1* * Corresponding author Email: [email protected] 1 Yale University School of Public Health, 60 College Street, P.O. Box 208034, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8034, USA 2 Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Abt Associates, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 4 Department for International Development, Abuja, Nigeria 5 Jimma University College of Public Health and Medical Sciences, Jimma, Ethiopia Abstract Background Decentralization through the establishment of hospital governing boards has been touted as an effective way to improve the quality and efficiency of hospitals in low-income countries. Although several studies have examined the process of decentralization, few have quantitatively assessed the implementation of hospital governing boards and their impact on hospital performance. Therefore, we sought to describe the functioning of governing boards and to determine the association between governing board functioning and hospital performance. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study with governing board chairpersons to assess board (1) structure, (2) roles and responsibilities and (3) training and orientation practices. Using bivariate analysis and multivariable regression, we examined the association between governing board functioning and hospital performance. Hospital performance indicators: 1) percent of hospital management standards met, measured with the Ethiopian Hospital Reform Implementation Guidelines and 2) patient experience, measured with the Inpatient and Outpatient Assessment of Healthcare surveys. Results A total of 92 boards responded to the survey (96% response rate). The average percentage of EHRIG standards met was 58.1% (standard deviation (SD) 21.7 percentage points), and the mean overall patient experience score was 7.2 (SD 2.2). Hospitals with greater hospital management standards met had governing boards that paid members, reviewed performance in several domains quarterly or more frequently, developed new revenue sources, determined services to be outsourced, reviewed patient complaints, and had members with knowledge in business and financial management (all P-values < 0.05). Hospitals with more positive patient experience had governing boards that developed new revenue sources, determined services to be outsourced, and reviewed patient complaints (all P-values < 0.05). Conclusions These cross-sectional data suggest that strengthening governing boards to perform essential responsibilities may result in improved hospital performance. Keywords Governance, Decentralization, Ethiopia, Healthcare reform Background Decentralization has been touted as an effective means to improve the quality and efficiency of health systems in low-income countries [1,2]. However, evidence suggests that such efforts have failed due to a lack of clear governance roles and relationships [3]. In the context of hospitals, governing boards have been recommended as mechanisms by which strategic planning, financial management, and human resource management can be devolved from central authorities to local communities and provider organizations [4]. With adequate preparation and support, as well as meaningful community representation, hospital governing boards have been suggested as a means to increase community ownership, improve revenue generation, decrease expenses, and improve quality of care [5,6]. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Although hospital governing boards have been widely discussed as part of healthcare reform in several low-income countries [7-10], we could find no peer reviewed studies on their implementation or impact in these settings. Nevertheless, reports from the gray literature have described the implementation of hospital governing boards in Lebanon, India, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and Ghana [7-9]. All reports highlighted the complexity of governing board implementation, but none provided quantitative data about their functioning or reported statistical associations between hospital governing board functioning and hospital performance. Accordingly, we sought to describe the implementation of hospital governing boards in the context of national healthcare reform in a large, low-income country, Ethiopia. Ethiopia provided an ideal setting to explore topics related to decentralization to hospital governing boards because the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) and the Regional Health Bureaus (RHBs) established governing boards for the majority of government hospitals in 2005–2006. The Ethiopian government has been reforming the health sector for more than fifteen years, as guided by the Health Sector Development Program (HSDP). The nation faced many challenges in this endeavor including poorly funded facilities, shortages of clinical staff and limited access to services for rural communities. The vast majority of hospitals in Ethiopia have been funded and managed by the state, either through federal or regional health bureaus. The government has now focused on the decentralization of decision making from the federal level to the regional, zonal, and district levels, allowing for efficient mobilization of resources. A major element of this decentralization reform has been the establishment of governing boards, which reflect hospital and community leadership and are charged with strategic planning, budget approval, and performance management responsibilities. We hypothesized that hospitals with higher functioning governing boards would have better performance, as measured by better adherence to the Ethiopian Hospital Reform Implementation Guidelines (EHRIG) and more positive patient experience. This is based on the concept that governing boards are local entities that can hold hospitals accountable for performance, can support strategic thinking to promote alignment between services and community needs, and can help advocate with the ministry for financial resources needed for hospitals. Despite substantial attention on the implementation of hospital governing boards in Ethiopia, previous studies have not examined how their actions may be linked empirically to hospital performance. Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Findings from this study can be used by policy makers and healthcare managers seeking to implement decentralization reforms in low-income countries. Methods Ethics statement All research procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Yale School of Medicine (HIC Protocol #1105008523) and the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health. Setting Nearly all government hospitals in Ethiopia have created governing boards, giving oversight and accountability responsibilities to community members, hospital managers, and other local government representatives. Hospital governing boards have 5–7 members, are required to consider gender and community representation in recruitment of new members, and exist to better mobilize resources, enhance community participation, and improve hospital performance. Board members are selected by the Federal Ministry of Health and Regional Health Bureaus as appropriate, serve 3–5 year terms, and focus on financial and operational oversight of hospitals, as per the Ethiopian Hospital Reform Implementation Guidelines [11] and legislation in 9 regional health bureaus and 2 city administrations. Several nongovernmental organizations have supported the rollout of governing boards, including the orientation of boards to their roles and responsibilities. Only 16 of the government hospitals, all in smaller, more rural regions of Ethiopia, had not established governing boards at the time of the study; all hospitals with governing boards were contacted for the survey. Study design and sample We conducted a cross-sectional study using quantitative data from a national survey of government hospital governing boards in Ethiopia during 2011 linked with hospital performance data from the Ethiopian national performance management system. The sampling frame included all government hospitals with governing boards (N = 100 of the 116 government hospitals in Ethiopia in 2011). We surveyed the chairperson or designee of the governing board in each hospital. Data were collected using face-to-face interviews and in rare cases telephone interviews (when distance or time posed a challenge, N = 3). A total of 92 hospital boards responded to the survey (response rate 96%). We also collected data (N = 85 hospitals) on hospital adherence to the EHRIG, 124 operational standards used to assess the management of government hospitals [11,12]. Additionally, for a subset of hospitals (N = 49), we collected data on patient experience, using a method and instrument previously validated for use in Ethiopia [13]. Data collection and measures Survey instrument The study team developed a 36-question survey instrument to ascertain the functioning of Ethiopian hospital governing boards.Discussion: Healthcare Law and Ethics Closed-ended survey items were developed through a rigorous, 6-month process, which included in-depth analysis of literature, convening of stakeholders, and review of policy documents in which intended functions of the governing boards were described. In addition, we included 1 open-ended item at the end of the survey, “Please share any other comments or concerns you have in relation to the functioning of your governing board.” In practice, the discussions focused on challenges and concerns. The study team was multidisciplinary and consisted of academicians from universities in Ethiopia and the US, non-governmental organizations with knowledge in governance and hospital operations, and physicians, n … Purchase answer to see full attachment Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10