Ethics In Medicine Essay Example

Introduction and Thesis

An individual’s right to determine if they should undergo medical treatment is ethically and legally essential in the relationships between patients and physicians. Allowing patients to make this crucial decision shows respect for their autonomy and well-being, increasing their trust and confidence in the healthcare providers. The main determinants of valid informed consent are an individual’s ability and capacity to consent, their full access and understanding of information regarding the treatment, and whether they give the consent freely and voluntarily. The first determinant of valid consent regards an individual’s capacity or competence to give consent. This ability can link to an individual’s age and whether they are mature enough to consent or refuse to undergo certain medical treatments. Since age is directly related to the ability to understand information regarding one’s health status, adolescents would not be mature enough to consent or refuse to be subjected to treatment to save their life.

Case Description and background

Adolescents refusing to consent to medical treatment is one of the modern problems experienced in medical ethics. Many adolescents as young as 15 years old suffer from serious medical conditions such as cancer and mental health issues refusing to undergo medical procedures. Some major reasons for refusing medical treatment include lack of trust, apathy, treatment’s side effects, and denial of the problem (Gebauer et al., 2019). For example, a follower of Jehovah’s Witness may refuse to accept blood transfusion as their faith is against such medical procedures. However, when patients refuse to accept medical treatment, they endanger their life and well-being, which health workers are mandated to secure. In such circumstances, especially when doctors believe a patient is at risk of serious health consequences, doctors are left at crossroads and are sometimes forced to seek legal advice on the right decision to make (Haahr et al., 2020). One such case involved a 17-year-old who refused to undergo chemotherapy as a treatment for her cancer.

In this case, a 17-year-old Cassandra had refused to be subjected to chemotherapy, citing its adverse side effects. Cassandra had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer affecting the lymphatic system, which is the body’s immunity system. In Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lymphocytes grow out of control leading to swollen lymph nodes and growths throughout the patient’s body. Chemotherapy is the main treatment procedure involving using powerful chemicals to kill excess lymphocytes. However, although the treatment method is very effective, it is associated with many side effects, including hair loss, loss of appetite, tiredness, feeling of being sick, bruising and bleeding, and skin and nail changes, among others. In worst cases, chemotherapy could lead to early menopause, peripheral neuropathy, infertility, and heart and lung problems (Lupkin, 2015). Due to these side effects, some patients refuse to undergo the procedure due to consequences on their health.

Cassandra’s refusal to undergo the treatment was based on its side effects prompting her doctor to seek the court’s advice. According to the court summary, Cassandra had undergone two chemotherapy sessions but refused to complete the treatment, a decision that her mother supported. However, the Department of Children and Families intervened and ordered her mother to comply with recommended treatment. A court hearing followed, and doctors testified in support of the procedure, arguing that the patient had an 80 to 85 percent chance of surviving if she was subjected to chemotherapy. Following the testimonies, the court ordered she be taken under state custody so that the state could make medical decisions on her behalf. Following the court’s ruling, the teenager was held at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, where she was forced to undergo chemotherapy sessions (Lupkin, 2015). Such directives involving patients’ right to make decisions regarding their health raise serious moral and ethical arguments that continue to guide the decisions made in the medical profession.

Argument

The decision made by the court on Cassandra’s case involves what is referred to as the involuntary treatment of what critics refer to as forced drugging. This refers to subjecting patients to medical treatment without their consent. In some countries, such as the United States, involuntary treatment is allowed by the law and enforced by the judiciary through court orders. Supporters of involuntary treatment argue that physicians’ role involves treating patients through the means they dim fit to achieve the best treatment outcomes (Szmukler, 2020). Further, they argue that medical practitioners act in the patient’s best interests and, therefore, patients are responsible for being strictly obedient to the orders given by physicians. When the patient is involved in a child or an adolescent, parents or medical doctors are allowed to provide the best care for patients even when their decisions are at odds with the patient of their parent’s wishes. Such decisions are based on the parens patriae principle, which allows the state to assume parental responsibilities for any child in order to protect them (Diekema, 2020). However, there are various arguments against the parens patriae principle, especially concerning medical treatment.

One major argument against parens patriae is that respecting patients’ autonomy is crucial in building trust in healthcare. According to Haahr et al. (2020), patients should be allowed to make decisions involving their health issues since it is their life and body. He further insists that as long as patients are not harming themselves, it should not be anyone’s business to decide the medical treatment they wish to accept or reject. Even if doctors act in the patient’s best interests, respecting their wishes should guide their decision-making. Where children or adolescents are involved, their parent’s wishes should guide physicians’ decisions. This is because; parents are competent to make informed decisions, and their values and views regarding their children’s health should be respected. However, Diekema (2020) argues that while this view is important to consider, it should have limits. While parents understand their children more than any other party, their wishes are not in the objective best interest of their children (Diekema, 2020). In the case of Cassandra, her best interest is subjecting her to the best treatment method that would increase her probability of recovering by over 80% (Lupkin, 2015). By opposing the treatment, Cassandra and her parent were not acting in the patient’s best interest.

Moral Theory

Many decisions regarding moral and ethical issues in medicine are made based on the arguments of various moral and ethical theorists. One such theorist is Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern Utilitarianism. According to Utilitarianism, the morally right decision is the one that promotes happiness, while decisions that promote pain are morally wrong. Regarding Cassandra’s case, the treatment and healing of her cancer will lead to a better life devoid of tremendous pain caused by cancer illnesses. On the other hand, failure to subject her to chemotherapy treatment will lead to suffering, and she will eventually succumb to cancer (Shin et al., 2022). Therefore, the government’s decision to apply parens patriae is aimed at reducing her pain and increasing her pleasure which is the basis of the utilitarianism moral argument.

Social and Moral Significance

The ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding Cassandra’s case has a moral significance in health and other aspects of society. The fact that the court applies the principles of Utilitarianism shows the theory’s importance in making decisions involving ethical and moral dilemmas. In healthcare, some decisions involve introducing some aspect of pain to patients to heal other forms of pain. For example, physicians are sometimes forced to amputate body organs such as limbs, breasts, and the uterus to prevent the spreading of cancerous cells in other body parts. While such decisions induce lifetime pain, such as childlessness, and inability to walk, they prevent patients from succumbing to cancer. In addition to healthcare, Utilitarianism helps in moral reasoning and other types of rational decision-making in a wide range of contexts. In addition, Utilitarianism rejects moral codes such as taboos based on traditions, customs, or orders perceived to be given by some supernatural beings (Shin et al., 2022). Some decisions based on such moral codes may subject society to unnecessary suffering, which necessitates the government to develop counteractive policies.

Conclusion

Ethical deliberations regarding compulsory treatment are contemporary issues affecting health care. The main reason for the issue’s importance is that it violates patients’ autonomy and neglects their decision-making capacity. The crash between the patient’s autonomy and the physicians’ roles to act in the patient’s best interest has made some cases end in court. The Connecticut Supreme Court’s Ruling regarding Cassandra’s case demonstrates the role of ethical and moral theories in solving problems involving dilemmas experienced in healthcare. In addition, the ruling demonstrated that the laws guiding healthcare practice leave room for moral judgments regarding issues such as involuntary treatment. On the other hand, such moral judgments apply popular moral and ethical theories that ensure making rational decisions. In this regard, Utilitarianism is one of the moral theories with a wide range of applications in the health sector. The theory justifies using treatment methods such as organ amputation and chemotherapy that have short-term or long-term negative consequences. However, the positive impacts of such treatments supersede the negative consequences, and such decisions are made in the patient’s best interests.

References

Diekema, D. S. (2020). Adolescent brain development and medical decision-making. Pediatrics146(Supplement_1), S18-S24.

Gebauer, J., Higham, C., Langer, T., Denzer, C., & Brabant, G. (2019). Long-term endocrine and metabolic consequences of cancer treatment: a systematic review. Endocrine Reviews, 40(3), 711-767.

Haahr, A., Norlyk, A., Martinsen, B., & Dreyer, P. (2020). Nurses experiences of ethical dilemmas: A review. Nursing ethics27(1), 258-272.

Lupkin, S. (2015) Conn. Supreme Court Rules 17-Year-Old Cancer Patient Must Have Chemo, ABC News. ABC News Network. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/conn-supreme-court-rules-17-year-cancer-patient/story?id=28093594#:~:text=Conn.-,SupremeCourtRules17YearOldCancerPatientMustHave,ruledonthecaseThursday.&text=JackieFortinsupports17year,ordersteentoundergotreatment. (Accessed: November 27, 2022).

Shin, Y., Kim, S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S., Cho, M., & Ihm, J. (2022). The effect of the deliberative process on the self-sacrificial decisions of utilitarian healthcare students. BMC medical ethics23(1), 1-10.

Szmukler, G. (2020). Involuntary detention and treatment: Are we edging toward a “Paradigm Shift”?. Schizophrenia bulletin46(2), 231-235.

Euthanasia Argumentative Essay On Legalization Essay Example For College

Introduction

Several diseases have arisen and survived throughout human history, and people have had difficulty developing effective cures or therapies against them. Individuals have tried their hand at traditional and cutting-edge scientific methodologies in searching for a solution. Because, in the end, we want to make sure that people live as long as possible, all of our efforts have been concentrated on making that happen. However, there are times when the suffering that comes with living is so intense that the person experiencing it or people who care about them could consider euthanasia as a means of escape (Kumar et al. 91-96). Assisting another person in taking their own lives in the belief that doing so would relieve them of their pain is known as “euthanasia.” People with a terminal illness and in excruciating agony are often candidates for euthanasia. Therefore, it refers to the practice in which a medical practitioner actively supports a patient who is terminally sick in committing suicide. Many people have different opinions on whether or not it is moral to legalize euthanasia. Even though some people will not agree with me, it is my solid conviction that euthanasia should be legalized in the United States of America. People should be free to choose how they want their lives to end, and euthanasia should be permitted on a global scale if we are to take into account several ethical and practical issues that support this position. People who decide to end their lives can avoid additional suffering and pain, exercise their right to their lives, prevent additional costs, save others (their loved ones) from suffering, respect their autonomy, and become free from certain legalities.

Patients suffering unbearably while battling for their lives may benefit significantly from euthanasia. Many people who support euthanasia argue that, in some cases, dying is better than living. It is indisputable that the patient’s final days are a living nightmare due to the pain and suffering that often accompany terminal conditions. At that point, suicide may seem the most humanitarian way to end their suffering (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). The patient’s suffering may have been exacerbated by the fact that he or she had a terminal illness from which there is almost little hope of recovery. If there is no chance of recovery, it is cruel to subject the sufferer to more suffering. It is morally correct to act following the principle of beneficence and reduce a dying person’s pain and discomfort. Unfortunately, terminally sick patients may experience more than just suffering; occasionally, they may be placed in an even more terrible situation. Consequences may include generalized fatigue, loss of appetite, and an increased sense of helplessness. The only thing the patient cares about now is ending their life, and they have given up on living with any sense of pride or honor. This highlights the potential weight of the patient’s wish for a peaceful passing.

Euthanasia also demonstrates compassion for the patients and stops the emotional and physical anguish that others would otherwise endure, such as the patient’s loved ones and those near them. The emotional misery that often comes hand in hand with some disorders may be just as painful as the physical pain they cause. A prime example of this would be the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As it worsens, those affected by this ailment are put through unimaginable suffering. The resilience of their bodies progressively decreases, they begin to weaken, and in the end, they shrivel up and die. In addition to the obvious physical suffering, they are also going through a great deal of mental anguish because they are aware that even with the highest quality of medical care, their symptoms will only be marginally improved for a short period. That death is ultimately unavoidable (Kumar et al. 91-96). Suppose terminally ill patients are legally allowed to seek euthanasia to speed up the dying process. Do the patients’ loved ones not have a moral obligation to end the patients’ mental and physical suffering? Since those in charge of providing euthanasia are aware that the patient is in pain and that death is close at hand, it is a kind gesture for the patient to let death come sooner than anticipated. In this context, euthanasia is seen as a compassionate solution to the problem of intolerable suffering.

Additionally, euthanasia is ethically commendable since it gives individuals the option to terminate their lives most satisfyingly. The United States of America Constitution allows individuals to seek personal happiness. In this discussion, “freedom of choice” means that every individual has the right to decide whether or not to continue living, even if they are terminally ill (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). Those dealing with terminal conditions should not be denied the choice to end their lives early because of opposition to legalizing euthanasia. For whatever reason, death does not arrive as swiftly as they would want, so they have no option but to take their own lives. When governments forbid terminally ill persons from committing suicide, they are violating the constitutional right of such individuals to terminate their own life free from pain and suffering. For instance, in Texas, it is against the law to actively hasten or hasten the death of a person, whether by euthanasia, mercy killing, or other means of hastening death. The Declaration of Independence, the country’s founding document, also guarantees every citizen the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There is a direct correlation between this liberty and the last act of one’s life. Refusing terminally ill persons the choice of committing suicide would violate their right to life. Those in the latter stages of a fatal illness and so much anguish that they cannot bear to continue living should be offered the option to terminate their lives prematurely. As a result, people should not be prevented by too restrictive rules from ending their lives on their terms if they choose. For instance, euthanasia may be practiced lawfully in Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, Washington, Maine, the District of Columbia, California, and Vermont. In these states, patients who are candidates for voluntary euthanasia decide on their own whether or not to end their lives. A guardian will decide if the person in question cannot provide informed permission.

Moreover, euthanasia should be legalized since it demonstrates respect for people’s liberties. The act of dying when and in the manner one chooses is a highly personal and private concern. Patients who have fatal conditions, such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (M.S.), or Alzheimer’s disease (A.D.), are aware of their impending mortality and want control over the process of dying. They cannot bear the idea of surrendering control and being forced to depend on the assistance of others. Second, people who are nearing the end of their life and are terminally ill do not want to spend their money on the ever-increasing expenses of medical care; instead, they would want to die away as soon as possible so that their heirs may reap the full financial benefits of their inheritance. These justifications have a significant weight because the patients are in perpetual, immense pain and have accepted the reality that there is no possibility of treatment and that death is imminent. Furthermore, the patients have acknowledged that there is no chance of a cure and that death is imminent.

Another advantage of euthanasia is that it offers the emotional solace that loved ones need when they are forced to watch a loved one suffer while they get medical treatment. However, no one wants to see a loved one endure unnecessary pain in a hospital, which may sometimes occur. Given all this, it is not hard to see why so many individuals think euthanasia should be legalized. If a person’s loved ones are made to watch while someone they care about is in pain, it may give them a great deal of emotional suffering, which can spread to every part of their existence (Arsić 28-34). Hospital bills for patients with life-limiting conditions might consume significant cash. Most individuals with terminal illnesses spend the last days of their lives connected to various life support systems, leaving behind a significant medical bill for their loved ones. Euthanasia may save a patient’s family $10,000 in medical expenses even if a patient passes away while in excruciating pain; it is not unheard of for the total cost of their hospital stay to slowly escalate during their time there. Due to their poor financial conditions, some families may have little choice but to take out loans to pay for medical treatment for a family member. It would help lessen the emotional toll of caring for a sick loved one and save families a ton of money on medical treatment if euthanasia were widely acknowledged and used in hospitals (Arsić 28-34).

Also, euthanasia legalization raises the concern of individual liberty versus state interests. The State undoubtedly cares deeply about protecting the lives of its people. Such curiosity is natural and indicative of a well-run state since it is motivated by citizens’ faith in their government. Therefore, it is seen as evidence of a government properly doing the job it was elected to do when the government takes precautionary steps to safeguard its citizens, such as arresting thieves and mobsters, interning drug traffickers and human smugglers, punishing wife batterers and rapists or sentencing mass murderers to imprisonment or the death penalty. When it becomes a personal decision, however, unlike the various forms of public safeguards, the level of interest from the State is not commensurate with the level of interest from terminally ill people who choose to end their lives through death. If the State reinforces this skewed “against the State” level of interest by prohibiting it, it will be perceived as an intrusion on individual freedom. Perhaps the most significant U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, defined democracy as government “by the people, of the people, and for the people.” So, it stands to reason that the people’s will takes precedence in the United States, a strong democracy. It follows, therefore, that in the debate over whether or not to legalize euthanasia, the people’s will should be accorded the highest priority. The majority of people believe euthanasia should be made legal.

It has been suggested that euthanasia is ethically permissible if it is carried out following the desires of a patient suffering from a terminal illness. On the other hand, it would be unethical for physicians to refuse a terminally ill patient’s request for euthanasia just because the law prohibits them from doing so (Dintcho). The practice of euthanasia ought to be legalized everywhere in the United States and the rest of the world so that those suffering from life-threatening conditions may terminate their lives with the honor and peace they have earned. Many physicians and other medical professionals would not give it a second thought to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives with dignity if they were permitted to do so under the law. In addition, they would not hide the fact that they had done it in any way and would be very forthright about it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, euthanasia should be seen as a means to offer individuals more control over their deaths, reduce the amount of suffering that people experience, and reduce the amount of money people spend on medical care. People on life support or with a fatal condition that causes them chronic agony can contemplate euthanasia. This may make their suffering more manageable. It is true that if you are paralyzed and unable to care for yourself, spending the rest of your life in a hospital bed is not exactly what you would call having a high quality of life (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). However, if you can communicate with other people, there is a possibility that you could have a better quality of life. It is nonsensical to say that legalizing euthanasia offers enormous moral and ethical issues, especially because of its message about the value of human life. Freedom in its purest form exists only when an individual is unfettered in their ability to choose whether their own life is worth living. The decision ultimately rests with the patient and the patient alone. If a person cannot make decisions for themselves—for example, if they are in a coma—their loved ones are the only ones authorized to do so. In addition, if euthanasia is legalized, physicians who have received patients’ informed permission might stop carrying out the practice secretly (Dintcho). A change in the law regarding euthanasia does not always lead to its widespread acceptance. It is about giving people the credit they deserve when they use their freedom. Because euthanasia is a morally acceptable practice, it should be legalized globally, not only in the United States. However, legislation should establish acceptance criteria for each occurrence, eliminating arbitrary judgments that lead to the untimely deaths of people and adding stress to the lives of those who are already under enormous pressure.

Work Cited

Dintcho, Arisa D. “Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?” Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal 5.1 2020: 1.

Arsić, Miloš. “Euthanasia and moral dilemmas.” Medicinski časopis 56.1 (2022): 28-34.

Kumar, Ajay, Aseem Mehra, and Ajit Avasthi. “Euthanasia: A Debate—For and Against.” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research 55.2 2021: 91–96.

Baksheev, Andrey Ivanovich, et al. “Euthanasia in modern society: the topicality, practicability, and medical aspect of the problem.” Journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research 10.6 (2018): 1360–1363.

Evaluation Plan Design University Essay Example

Nurses form a critical part of the interdisciplinary team dedicated to executing quality nursing care to facilitate better patient outcomes. Adequate nurses are essential to facilitate seamless delegation, lessen work burden, minimize fatigue and ensure job satisfaction. Hence, healthcare organizations need to employ sufficient nurses and ensure their retention by providing a positive work environment with a psychosocial safety climate. The most feasible intervention plan to facilitate this aspect is nurse empowerment, providing an enabling environment, decision-making discretion, leadership involvement, and pay-for-performance incentives. Thus, developing an evaluation plan by considering various elements, including advocacy, future steps, and reflection on leading change and improvement, facilitates better project outcomes.

Evaluation of Plan

The interventions should lead to desirable outcomes that facilitate organizational goal achievement and ensure high-quality healthcare service provision. The significant outcomes of implementing the proposed interventions are attracting and retaining healthcare professionals and fostering job satisfaction, as an essential health workforce need. The intervention plan aims to create incentives and ensure a favorable work atmosphere for interdisciplinary teams, including nurses. Consequently, providing a positive work environment is highly associated with reduced turnover rates and attracts healthcare professionals, including nurses (Maassen et al., 2020). Additionally, job satisfaction is the ultimate goal that will aid in the realization of reduced attrition rates which aligns with the project’s purpose of facilitating better patient outcomes that is feasible through such an outcome. By ensuring job satisfaction and reduced attrition rates, appropriate nurse-to-patient ratios are achievable, which correlates to reduced hospital-acquired infection rates, re-admissions, adverse events, and hospital mortality rates (Maassen et al., 2020). These essential elements display improvement in quality, safety, and care experience. Hence, the outcomes are associated with better approaches to patient care related to pros rather than cons.

Evaluation is crucial in informing the actors of an intervention plan and whether a project was successful. Evaluation of outcome achievement will be through data collection of the elements associated with the outcomes. The elements or data that characterize the attrition rates are the numbers of employees that have left the healthcare organization voluntarily or involuntarily, which can be obtained through employee records. Additionally, job satisfaction elements include various themes such as factors concerning needs, including physical working conditions, payments, and fringe benefits, related needs associated with the social environment, and physical working conditions (Li et al., 2019). The growth needs that need evaluation include career or self-development and management environment (Li et al., 2019). These themes form the basis of assumptions associated with job satisfaction elements. Data collection will be through conducting employee satisfaction surveys, obtaining written feedback through employee suggestion boxes, and employee satisfaction indexes. Hence, employee satisfaction surveys are more appropriate when supplied digitally or using specialized software. For example, the healthcare organization can create a website whereby employees access templates they can fill and the relevant stakeholders make the necessary evaluations. Microsoft Excel is the most common data analysis tool that aids in manipulating spreadsheets since it is a mild to moderate analysis that does not require technicalities. Hence, the evaluation plan reflects on the outcomes associated with the intervention plan and its essential elements.

Discussion

Advocacy

Nurses are significantly involved in advocacy by providing holistic care and facilitating patient-centeredness through individualistic care. Nurses have strong leadership characteristics that include compassion, empathy, awareness, intelligence, and accountability, which are essential in initiating and sustaining change management among interprofessional teams (Anders et al., 2020). They are instrumental as innovators and codesigners in public health and health care systems by continually learning and applying improvements through evidence-based approaches. Through nursing leadership positions, especially in health care boards, nurses can exert influence on organizational policies, cultures, and practices that they can fashion towards promoting quality and experience of care in professional practice and interprofessional teams, which is an assumption that leads to change. Nurses have a critical role in establishing positive relations with patients and interprofessional teams relevant to improving quality and care experience (Anders et al., 2020). Hence, these roles are essential for all healthcare providers to facilitate collaboration toward change.

The intervention plan is set to promote the work environment to be favorable for nurses’ emotional and psychological well-being to improve patient care. The intervention plan improves nursing practice by motivating nurses to provide high-quality healthcare services by facilitating an enabling environment. Additionally, by establishing a positive work environment and creating a psychosocial safety climate, healthcare professionals can share responsibilities in problem-solving and decision-making needed to facilitate patient care plans (Rosen et al., 2018). By creating a positive work environment, healthcare organizations provide an atmosphere for pooling specialized services that enable effective integrated interventions focused on enhancing patient outcomes and ensuring their safety (Rosen et al., 2018). Additional benefits include securing professional development that helps implement the best evidence that improves care experience and patient outcomes. Knowledge gaps include whether a positive work environment can sustain interprofessional collaboration independently. Hence, these approaches are critical in promoting overall patient outcomes and improving health care quality.

Future Steps

Plan modifications are necessary to facilitate project improvements and align them with the organizational culture and practices. The change team can revise the intervention plan by including novel care models and fashioning them to suit a positive work environment that can be instrumental in the project’s success. The shared care model is an appropriate modification that can be essential in fostering a positive work environment that provides an opportunity to provide high-quality and holistic care to support better patient outcomes (Marcussen et al., 2021). This aspect can be feasible when the project incorporates interprofessional expertise to facilitate improved creativity in problem-solving (Marcussen et al., 2021). Additionally, necessary modifications can be through establishing a method for progress monitoring that provides a systematic approach for evaluating outcomes that can be critical in refining the interventions to meet the target population’s desired goals, which is a crucial assumption. Communication is vital in implementing the intervention plan, and technological trends can be instrumental in realizing better outcomes. An example of an emerging technological trend that can improve communication performance is social media use with a broader impact, considering its population base (Chen & Wang, 2021). Social media use in facilitating communication can ensure effective interaction concerning the intervention plans. Hence, revision can be critical to including favorable approaches that can restructure the interventions to meet the target population’s needs.

Reflecting on Leading Change and Improvements

Capstone projects should provide insights to nurses on improving personal practice and inform them about future leadership positions. The capstone project has provided crucial information necessary to facilitate job satisfaction for healthcare workers. Empowering nurses from various angles can foster interprofessional collaboration and professional development. Hence, it provides information on the advocacy roles of nurses and nurse leaders in spearheading change in healthcare organizations through informing on the relevant approaches to ensure job satisfaction and reduce attrition rates. y upholding the leadership role of nurses in initiating and sustaining change in public health and health care systems. Aligning the needs of healthcare workers with organizational goals in future leadership positions can be crucial to harmonize such factors to realize better outcomes. Hence, projects should promote the personal practice and care settings while informing future leadership roles and strategies.

The intervention, implementation, and evaluation plans are necessary and applicable in care settings to realize better patient outcomes. By acknowledging the role of nurses in promoting healthcare systems and influencing quality improvement, the plans are essential in advocating nurses’ role in patient-centered care activities and realizing a safety and care quality culture (Maassen et al., 2020). Furthermore, by recognizing the role of healthcare policies, healthcare organizations can develop appropriate policies suitable for the care environment to facilitate patient-centered care. Nurse leaders can appreciate a positive work environment and psychosocial safety climate in enhancing job satisfaction, reducing attrition rates, and associating it with positive patient outcomes (Maassen et al., 2020). Hence, nurses and nurse leaders are crucial in promoting emotional and psychological wellness in the work environment.

Conclusion

The evaluation plan provides insights on improving the intervention plan and enabling its applicability in the current care settings. The intervention plan outcomes include attracting and retaining healthcare professionals and fostering job satisfaction. The evaluation plan will collect data on various job satisfaction elements such as existence, related, and growth needs through multiple approaches, including employee satisfaction surveys, employee suggestion boxes, and employee satisfaction indexes. Nurses’ roles in leading change include innovation, creating positive relations, and influencing organizational policies, practices, and cultures. Hence, nurse leaders should develop practical approaches to facilitating job satisfaction to realize organizational goal attainment.

References

Anders, R. L., Jackson, D., Davidson, P. M., & Daly, J. P. (2020). Nursing Leadership for 21st Century. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem29. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0000.3472

Chen, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/17917

Li, H., Yuan, B., Wang, D., & Meng, Q. (2019). Motivating factors on performance of primary care workers in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open9(11). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028619

Maassen, S. M., Oostveen, C. V., Vermeulen, H., & Weggelaar, A. M. (2020). Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study. PLoS ONE16(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247530

Marcussen, M., Berring, L., Hørder, M., Søndergaard, J., & Nørgaard, B. (2021). Protocol: Development of a model for shared care between general practice and mental healthcare: A protocol for a co-production study. BMJ Open12(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061575

Rosen, M. A., DiazGranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., Pronovost, P. J., & Weaver, S. J. (2018). Teamwork in Healthcare: Key Discoveries Enabling Safer, High-Quality Care. The American psychologist73(4), 433. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000298