View the scenario called “Critical Decision Making for Providers” found in the Allied Health Community media ( ) In a 750-1,200 word paper, describe the scenario involving Mike, the lab technician, and answer the following questions: A minimum of three academic references from credible sources are required for this assignment. Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
Title: Critical Decision Making for Providers: A Lab Technician Scenario
Introduction:
In the healthcare field, critical decision-making is an essential skill for providers. This paper focuses on a scenario involving Mike, a lab technician, and examines the decisions he faces in light of ethical and professional considerations. The scenario highlights the importance of making well-informed choices that prioritize patient welfare while adhering to professional standards.
Scenario Overview:
In the presented scenario, Mike, a lab technician working in a hospital, encounters a situation where two test results conflict. The laboratory received a patient’s blood sample for a crucial test, which would help in determining the patient’s diagnosis and appropriate treatment plan. However, after conducting the test, Mike obtains two different results.
Ethical Challenges Faced:
1. Accuracy versus Expediency: The first ethical challenge Mike encounters is the dilemma of balancing accuracy and expediency. The conflicting test results force him to choose between retesting the sample, which might delay the diagnosis and treatment, or ignoring the discrepancy.
2. Patient Advocacy: Another ethical challenge revolves around Mike’s duty to advocate for the patient’s best interests. He must consider the potential consequences of his decision on the patient’s health and the clarity of their diagnosis.
Decisions Faced:
1. Reporting Inaccurate Results: Mike has the option to report the first result, ignoring the second, conflicting result. This choice could be driven by a desire to maintain the efficiency of the healthcare system and avoid potential delays in patient care.
2. Retesting the Sample: Alternatively, Mike could decide to retest the sample, aiming to resolve the conflict and ensure accurate results. This course of action aligns with ethical principles of integrity, accuracy, and patient-centered care, but could result in delays.
3. Seeking Guidance: Mike also has the option of seeking guidance from his supervisor or a more experienced colleague. By doing so, he may gain insights into how to navigate this ethical dilemma more effectively. However, seeking advice could further prolong the diagnostic process.
Analyzing the Decisions:
1. Reporting Inaccurate Results:
Reporting inaccurate results potentially risks the patient’s health and compromises Mike’s professional integrity. By disregarding contradictory evidence, he could contribute to an incorrect diagnosis or inappropriate treatment plan. From an ethical perspective, this option undermines the core principles of honesty and patient welfare.
Even though expedient reporting avoids delays and saves time, it violates Mike’s obligation to provide accurate information. Additionally, if discovered later, this behavior may lead to legal and professional consequences. Thus, this choice is not ethically justifiable, and professional guidelines discourage such practices.
2. Retesting the Sample:
Retesting the sample aligns with the principles of integrity, patient advocacy, and accurate diagnosis. This decision prioritizes the patient’s well-being by ensuring that the true test result is obtained and the appropriate treatment plan is determined. Retesting allows for the identification and resolution of potential errors, reducing the risk of misdiagnosis.
However, retesting comes with potential drawbacks. It can lead to the delay of the patient’s diagnosis and treatment, which may adversely affect their health. This decision requires careful consideration of the urgency of the patient’s condition and consulting other healthcare professionals involved in the patient’s care to mitigate unnecessary delays.
3. Seeking Guidance:
Seeking guidance is an advisable option for Mike to navigate this ethical dilemma effectively. Consulting with a supervisor or experienced colleague provides an opportunity to gain insights, perspectives, and guidance on the best course of action. Discussing the conflicting results and seeking advice could contribute to a more informed decision-making process.
However, seeking guidance may introduce further delays in the diagnostic process, potentially resulting in increased patient anxiety and discomfort. It is essential that the guidance-seeking process is efficient and timely, ensuring that the patient’s best interests are still prioritized.
Conclusion:
In the presented scenario, Mike, the lab technician, faces an ethical dilemma regarding two conflicting test results. By carefully considering the ethical challenges and the potential consequences of different decisions, this paper has provided analysis for possible courses of action. Retesting the sample emerges as a suitable choice, aligning with the principles of integrity, patient advocacy, and accurate diagnosis. Seeking guidance from a supervisor or experienced colleague is also an advisable strategy to ensure well-informed decision-making. Ultimately, through the application of ethical reasoning and professional standards, the patient’s welfare remains paramount in any critical decision-making process for healthcare providers.