NURS 6052 Week 1 Discussion Review of Current Healthcare Issues

NURS 6052 Week 1 Discussion Review of Current Healthcare Issues

How the Healthcare Issue Impacts Organizations

In one of the hospitals I work in, there has been a shortage in hospitalist physicians. At times, the organization was paying a huge sum to fill this shortage with locum physicians. In Washington State, Nurse Practitioners (NPs) are allowed to practice unrestricted, therefore, the organization hired 5 NPs to work as hospitalists.  This not only was a cost-effective solution but was also an employee retention solution, as many physicians were leaving the organization due to burn out. However, there are 16 states and 3 U.S. Territories that have reduced practice regulations and 12 states that have restricted practice (State Practice Environment, n.d.).  These restrictions limit access to care.  When I worked in Texas, the clinic that I worked in had a waiting list for primary care appointments that went out 45-60 days due to a shortage in physicians and the limitations put upon NPs scope of practice. If Texas had full practice authority for their NPs, they could have done like my current organization did and hired more NPs to fill the void, therefore increasing the access to care.

Description of the National Healthcare Issue

Physician supply has been impacted due to the long training times, the capacity of medical schools, and the lack of residency positions (Auerback et. al., 2018).  Due to the reduced number of physicians treating patients, we have seen an increase in the number of advanced practice registered nurses (APRN), especially NPs and physician assistants (PAs) that have overlapped with the care that physicians provide. Although this has helped address the shortage of primary care providers and specialists, the restrictions put on NPs in certain states has become a barrier for them to practice fully and fill the need for more care providers. For instance, in New York, there are written practice agreements between NPs and physicians (Poghosyan et. al., 2018). In 2015, New York adopted the Nurse Practitioner Modernization Act that would remove these practice agreements for NPs that had at least 3,600 practice hours, however sadly it has not been fully adopted and NPs are still limited in their scope of practice. Texas is another state that limits NPs practice by requiring that they practice under the supervision of a physician within a 75-mile radius (Wofford, 2019).  These regulations affect patient’s access to care and do not assist in achieving the nation’s goal of efficient and cost-effective care for all when limiting the skill set of less costly providers (Poghosyan et. al,. 2018).

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS 6052 Week 1 Discussion Review of Current Healthcare Issues

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

In order to provide better access to care and more cost-effective care, we must adopt the same full practice authority for NPs in all U.S. states and territories. Giving NPs the right to practice their skills fully would alleviate the shortage of not only primary care provides but also specialists, where the access to care is often long.

 

References

 

Auerbach, D. I., PhD., Staiger, D. O., PhD., & Buerhaus, Peter I,PhD., R.N. (2018). Growing

ranks of advanced practice clinicians — implications for the physician workforce. The 

            New England Journal of Medicine, 378(25), 2358-2360.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1056/NEJMp1801869

Poghosyan, Lusine, PhD, RN, Norful, Allison, PhD, RN & Laugesen, Miriam. (2018). Removing

restrictions on nurse practitioners’ scope of practice in New York State: Physicians’ and

nurse practitioners’ perspectives.  Journal of the American Association of Nurse 

            Practitioners30, 354-360. 

Pohl JM, Hanson C, Newland JA, Cronenwett L. Analysis & commentary. Unleashing nurse

practitioners’ potential to deliver primary care and lead teams. Health Affairs.

2010;29(5):900-905. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0374

State practice environment. (n.d.). American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

Wofford, P. (2019, July 8). Texas nurse practitioners fight for full practice authority. Nurse.org.

RE: Discussion – Week 1

Top of Form

I agree with you that shortages in physicians impacts healthcare. The enactment of the Affordable Care Act and the growing population has contributed to physician shortages in the United States (Zhang et al., 2020). With more people having access to healthcare it has become a harder task to find enough physicians to provide care to patients. I agree with you that lack of physicians can negatively impact health organizations because it causes a barrier in access to healthcare.

In my work setting we have been impacted with physician shortages. We only have one child psychiatrist available to our patients. Though our organization utilizes many psychiatric nurse practitioners at times the care that they can provide is limited. For example, when a child needs to be committed to our unit, the child needs to be assessed by two psychiatrists. Since we only have one psychiatrist available in the hospital, to complete the commitment the patient is assessed via tele-psyche. At times the patient refuses to speak with provider via tele-psyche and we then must wait for another provider to come in from another hospital. This at times causes a delay in care.  

Though my facility like your facility utilizes psychiatric nurse practitioners to provide better access to healthcare, in certain situations there are still barriers met due to the limitations on what the nurse practitioner can do in NJ. In Massachusetts nurse mental health clinical specialist can file to commit a patient (Johnson and Stern, 2014). I agree with you that giving nurse practitioners full practice authority across the state can help with the impact that physician shortages can have on access to healthcare. Great Post!

 

References

 

Johnson, J. M., & Stern, T. A. (2014). Involuntary hospitalization of primary care patients. The primary care companion for CNS disorders16(3), PCC.13f01613.

 

Zhang, X., Lin, D., Pforsich, H., & Lin, V. W. (2020). Physician workforce in the United States of America: forecasting nationwide shortages. Human resources for health18(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-0448-3

Bottom of Form

 

Discussion: Review of Current Healthcare Issues

If you were to ask 10 people what they believe to be the most significant issue facing healthcare today, you might get 10 different answers. Escalating costs? Regulation? Technology disruption?

These and many other topics are worthy of discussion. Not surprisingly, much has been said in the research, within the profession, and in the news about these topics. Whether they are issues of finance, quality, workload, or outcomes, there is no shortage of changes to be addressed.

In this Discussion, you examine a national healthcare issue and consider how that issue may impact your work setting. You also analyze how your organization has responded to this issue.

NURS 6052 Week 1 Discussion Review of Current Healthcare Issues

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and select one current national healthcare issue/stressor to focus on.
  • Reflect on the current national healthcare issue/stressor you selected and think about how this issue/stressor may be addressed in your work setting.

By Day 3 of Week 1

Post a description of the national healthcare issue/stressor you selected for analysis, and explain how the healthcare issue/stressor may impact your work setting. Then, describe how your health system work setting has responded to the healthcare issue/stressor, including a description of what changes may have been implemented. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 1

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days who chose a different national healthcare issue/stressor than you selected. Explain how their chosen national healthcare issue/stressor may also impact your work setting and what (if anything) is being done to address the national healthcare issue/stressor.

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

(0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

(0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

(0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS 6052 Week 1 Discussion Review of Current Healthcare Issues

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Open chat
WhatsApp chat +1 908-954-5454
We are online
Our papers are plagiarism-free, and our service is private and confidential. Do you need any writing help?