"Risk Management in Health Care" is a great example of a paper on surgery and rehabilitation. Wrong-site surgery is a devastating issue within health care that affects both the patient and surgeon. It results from poor planning of the preoperative process. Additionally, it is caused by other factors such as failure of the surgeon to exercise outstanding precaution, lack of organizational control, and some simple mistakes in terms of communication involving the patient and the surgeon (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2004). Risk management in health care plays an essential role in ensuring that risks such as wrong-site surgery and many others are mitigated while guaranteeing patient’ s and surgeon’ s protection.
In any professional field such as the health care industry, risk management refers to the obligation, proactively, and reactively. When it comes to health care, risk management solely honors the safety of patients, quality assurance, and the rights of patients in connection with those of physicians or surgeons. This paper explores the greater aspect of risk management in health care by focusing on the devastating problem of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site surgery is not only an orthopedic surgery problem that happens on the grounds that the specialist works on the wrong limb but also a framework issue that influences other surgical specialties too.
While the quantity of reported orthopedic surgery cases is not high with respect to the aggregate number of orthopedic expert obligation protection guarantees, a review investigation of an example of guarantors across the nation has proven that 84 percent of the cases including wrong-site orthopedic surgery cases brought about repayment installments over a 10-year period. When this is contrasted with all different sorts of orthopedic surgery claims where reimbursement repayments were made in 30 percent of orthopedic surgery cases amid a similar period (Healthcare Governance Limited et al.
2008). How to Evaluate Risks Associated with Wrong-site Surgery Aware of the many ways in which generalized risks in any health care system can be evaluated, wrong-site surgery calls for an appropriate approach. The first step is to ensure that the organization puts in place control measures, avoids simple mistakes, plan efficiently preoperative processes. Even when these issues have been looked into and ensured that they are guaranteed, evaluation of the risks remains instrumental(Healthcare Governance Limited et al.
2008). Evaluation is helpful since it helps in the determination, calculation and even the management of risks can never be adequately conceived, unforeseen, unmentionable, and unintended. Wrong-site surgery is a problem that requires essential measures to mitigate risks and forecasting future losses. As in the case of wrong-site surgery and particularly when evaluating risks, it is essential to devise a step-by-step approach that will ensure that all the risks are identified. Evaluation of risks helps organizations to determine the connotation of risks to the business and resolve to accept the unambiguous risk or take action to avert or lessen risks.
To evaluate risks, it is meaningful to rank the risks after identifying them. This is possible by taking the initiative of considering the magnitude and likelihood of each risk in the health care setting. This is because many organizations find that assessing consequence and probability as high, medium, or low is likely to help solve various problems within any organization(Rothman, 2006). It is essential to compare the identified risks to organizations’ business plan or mission.
This will assist in determining the risks that are likely to affect the organization’ s objectives and then evaluate the risks considering legitimate requirements, costs, partakers’ and investors’ concerns. Mostly, the cost of alleviating a potential risk is likely to be higher, and doing nothing makes no business sense. Evaluation of risks helps tackle the highest risks possible. Finally, a system and controls must be in place to ensure that all consequences are dealt with appropriately. This is likely to involve defining a decision process and intensification procedures that health care organizations will always follow in case an event befell. A Plan for Management of Wrong-Site Surgery Wrong-site surgery is avoidable by having the surgeon consult with other physicians and patients when possible; place his or her initials where the utilizing a perpetual checking pen preceding the patient being moved to the area of the procedure and after that working through or adjacent to his or her initials.
Spinal surgery done at the wrong level can be forestalled with an intraoperative X-ray that denotes the definite site of surgery.
Thus, institutional conventions ought to incorporate these suggestions and include operating room medical caretakers and specialists, clinic room panels, anesthesiologists, inhabitants, and another preoperative united wellbeing workforce. Checking the right patient, strategy, and surgical site ought to be affirmed before the patient leaves the preoperative range and enters the technique room(Rothman, 2006). This helps in ensuring that any further risks are managed through ensuring that everything is in place and properly set for the surgery to take place. Eradicating wrong-site surgery requires the surgeon to interview with the patient where possible, places his or her initials on the agent site in a manner that can't be disregarded, and in a way that will be unmistakably inaccurate if exchanged onto an alternate body region preceding surgery.
The envisioned surgery site ought to be stamped such that the imprint will be noticeable after the patient has been prepped and swathed. The patient’ s records ought to be accessible inside the place where the surgeon is going to operate. Checklists may be utilized before the process to guarantee that assent structures were precisely finished and marked, important documentation such as physical and history must be precise, the indicative and radiology test outcomes must be correct, and any sensibly expected blood items, tissues, gadgets, and/or uncommon gear for the technique is accessible and accurately matched to the patient(American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2004). Once the patient has been moved into the area where he or she is going to be operated on, the surgical group ought to stop to take a “ period out” to convey about the particular patient and system.
A period out ought to incorporate affirmation of the patient’ s identity, ensure the right systems are in place, proper site, gear, and gadgets, as relevant, and controlling of anti-infectious agents.
The time-out ought to incorporate a twofold check of the patient’ s restorative record and x-rays. Missing data or inconsistencies must be tended to before beginning the methodology. All levels of the group (including the orthopedic specialist, anesthesiologist, circling attendant, and scour medical caretaker) ought to take an interest in the time-out to speak with group members and bring up any issues or concerns, which ought to be determined before proceeding (Rothman, 2006). Conclusion It is obvious that a number of measures need to be taken to address the issue of wrong-site surgery.
Risk management in health care plays an essential role in ensuring that risks such as wrong-site surgery are mitigated to guarantee patient’ s and surgeon’ s protection. Explicit circumstances of individual cases oblige particular and diverse activities from the specialist in case wrong-site surgery is found, however in all cases the patient’ s decision and the best interest of the patient ought to be the deciding variables in making certain choices.
Emslie, S., Hancock, C. P., & Healthcare Governance Limited. (2008). Issues in healthcare risk management. Oxford: Healthcare Governance Ltd.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2004).Advisory statement on wrong-site surgery.[Accessed October 21, 2014]. Available at: http://www.aaos.org/about/papers/advistmt/1015.asp.
Rothman, G. (2006). Incidence, patterns, and prevention of wrong-site surgery.Arch Surg. 2006; 141:1049–50.