Making in the VA Healthcare System
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Making in the VA Healthcare System
Unit 8: 450 Assignment
Ethics and Decision-Making in the VA Healthcare System
Course Outcome
HS450: Evaluate the impact of ethical decision-making on healthcare leadership to maximize strategic planning
Unit Outcomes
- Discuss the principles of ethics and medical professionalism in strategic planning.
- Examine the role of leaders in ethical decision-making and problem-solving strategies in the U.S. health system.
GEL-7.7: Analyze the effects of ethical decision making on the field of study.
Unit 8 Assignment
Case Study: Problems at the VA Health System
In 2009, President Barack Obama appointed retired Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, to the position of secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), the federal department responsible for providing healthcare and federal benefits to U.S. veterans and dependents. As part of its strategic plan, Secretary Shinseki was tasked with implementing 16 major initiatives to bring the VA into the 21st century. One of the 16 initiatives was the enhancement of the veteran’s experience with and access to healthcare.
In 2013, CNN was among the news outlets reporting that veterans were experiencing delayed care at the Williams Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Medical Center in Columbia, SC. In fact, the delays were so serious that six veterans died while waiting for months to receive necessary diagnostic procedures. The VA launched an investigation into the GI clinic at Dorn and found several issues, including low staff census; leadership turnover that resulted in a lack of understanding of roles, responsibilities and system processes; and ineffective program coordination. Allegations of long wait times also emerged from VA facilities in Arizona, Pittsburgh, and the Phoenix VA Health Care System. Delays, however, were not the only shortcomings alleged. In the Phoenix VA Health Care System, for instance, there were claims of manipulated patient wait times, bad scheduling practices, and patient deaths.
In 2014, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) launched an investigation into these allegations. Two questions were addressed in this review:
- Did the facility’s electronic wait list (EWL) purposely omit the names of veterans waiting for care and, if so, at whose direction?
- Were the deaths of any of these veterans related to delays in care?
The investigators confirmed “inappropriate scheduling issues throughout the VA and health care system” (VA 2014, iii).
In the Phoenix VA, specifically, investigators found that 1,400 veterans did not have a primary care appointment but were listed on the EWL. It was also determined that 1,700 veterans were waiting for a primary care appointment but were not listed on the EWL. Because veterans were not on the EWL system, the Phoenix leadership significantly understated the time new patients waited for the appointments. The investigators found that the average wait time was 115 days for the first primary care appointment and about 84 percent of these patients waited more than 14 days. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified multiple types of scheduling practices that were not in compliance with Veterans Health Administration policy. Since the multiple lists found were something other than the official EWL, the additional lists may be the basis for allegations of “secret” wait lists.
Secretary Shinseki called the findings “reprehensible” and resigned from his post on May 30, 2014.
Case Study Questions
- From a leadership perspective, analyze the problems at the VA relative to ethical decision-making practices.
- Discuss the ethical issue of having 1,700 veterans, who were not listed on the EWL, wait for a primary care appointment at the Phoenix VA. Create at least two (2) policies/standards to ensure ethical leadership practices with respect to improving coordination of the EWL and primary care appointments.
- Explain why Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned his position. Identify at least two (2) alternative options that Secretary Shinseki could have taken to resolve the unethical decision-making practices in this case study.
- Apply the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) Code of Ethics to the VA Health System case study.
Requirements:
- Please complete Assignment in a Microsoft Word® document.
- The body of your document should be at least 1500 words in length.
- Quoting should be less than 10% of the entire paper. Paraphrasing is necessary.
- Students must cite and reference at least four credible sources.
- APA format is required.
Assignment Rubric:
- Student describes the problems at the VA relative to ethical decision making be leadership. 50 Points
- Student discusses ethical practice shortcomings relative to case study and proposes two (2) new policies/ standards. 50 Points
- Student explains potential reasons for resignation of Secretary Shinseki. Student proposes two (2) alternative options for the VA Secretary. 50 Points
- Student applies ACHE Code of Ethics to case study to illuminate professional course of action. 50 Points
Total Points: 200 Points
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!