Healthcare Has Developed To a Great Extent †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: How Healthcare Developed To a Great Extent? Answer: Introducation Healthcare has developed to a great extent due to the advancements in the researchers conducted over the years by eminent scientists providing evidence based approaches and procedures of handling different disorders and issues. Besides, biomedical model that provides importance to the biological factors that contribute to the disorders, it is also important to include the social and psychological models into healthcare (Sims, Hewitt Harris, 2015). The occurrence of the disorder is mainly guided by number social factors that healthcare professionals need to assess to make the correct interventions. However often working in healthcare systems is not as simple as it sounds as number of power struggles and different hierarchical disadvantages exist in healthcare systems that make treatment to patients often difficult (Flottorp et al., 2013). The essay will mainly portray the different power and hierarchical issues that exist in healthcare system and will provide more light on how such p ower and hierarchical advantages and disadvantages are experienced by different stakeholders of organisation. The sociology of health and ailments help in examining the different types of interactions that exist between health at different levels and the society from which the patient in question is associated. Different aspects of social life often act as one of the main domain that contributes the factors for different health ailments resulting in mortality as well as morbidity. Often health and illness is related nowadays with different social institutions like school, family, employment and close relationships. The sociology of medicine only restricts the concern to different patient-practitioner relationship and the role of healthcare professionals in the society (Berkman, Kawachi Glymour, 2014). However, the sociology of health and illness mainly covers the sociological pathology that mainly covers the causes of the various types of diseases and illnesses (Cameron et al., 2014). It also consists of the factors that mainly results in the occurrence of the disorder besides the biologica l factors. This often includes the income, the health behaviours and lifestyles maintained by the patients in his life, food security experienced by him, environment and housing, relationship shared with society, education and literacy, social support, connectedness, access to health care, early childhood development. A person suffering from obesity is influence by his lifestyle factors, his diet, his physical activities and others which are the main contributors to the disorder (Braveman Gottlieb, 2014). Hence considering social factors are one of the most important steps that the healthcare practitioners should consider while diagnosing the patient. Biomedical model can be considered as the model which provides a scientific measure of health and considers each human being to be a body which is free from different types of diseases, pain, and defect. Is considers the normal human body to be healthy and any diseases or disorders are the factor of biological reasons only. An individual patient is considered to be a body that is sick and can be explored, handled, and treated independently from mind and other external factors with proper biological knowledge as well as different important skills (Deacon, 2013). Such a patient according to biological model needs to be handled by medical professionals having appropriate knowledge and the treatment of the patient will be conducted for the patients in proper medical environment with correct use of medical technology. This model is established in the modern Western societies looking at ill health as mainly biological factors and had overcome the old traditional healthcare practices. Medic al practitioners undergoes many years of training so that they can gain knowledge to understand various symptoms and help people in recovering them. The authorities maintain a hospital or other clinical environments which have specialist medical equipments helping the patients to have treatment which helps them recover fast and also with much efficiency (Pincus, Chua Gibson, 2016). The authorities of such hospitals maintain a power and hierarchy along with that of the medical practitioners. Doctors hold a big power in the model and are able to maintain them with efficiency. This model provides exactly the treatment that patient seeks from a doctor and hence provides treatments and recoveries which are results of several days work as well as different evidence based examples. Although the model of care is highly appreciated but recent researchers are of the opinion that often holistic approaches along with inclusion of the biomedical model have more prominent effects on the patient than the biomedical model alone. Moreover it is also suggested nowadays that often considering the psychological, social as well as environmental influences as they often tend to affect the health of an individual besides biological factors. Researchers suggest that social model of health is also extremely important as different important factors like poverty, job related stress, poor housing, deprived neighbourhoods, pollution and different poor life choices (Kuhlman et al., 2013) . Often health factors also get governed by different cultural and societal factors and not only by science alone. Smoking, unhealthy food habits and exercises also affect health. Therefore many researchers advise to follow the bio psychosocial model in order to include all important factors in consideration in planning interventions for the patients (Aveyard, 2014). With the advancement of healthcare science a large number of chronic disorders which were previously unmanageable and untreatable have now come within the mans grip. Healthcare practitioners have been considered as representations of Almighty who have the power to save a mans life from his fate of death. Such a big power is often referred by the patients to be possessed by doctors and nurses. However the practice of power and the foundations of hierarchy are not as simple as it seems to the modern ordinary man. In the present days, the culture of multidimensional team has become major concept while treating chronic ailments. An obese patient who is admitted in the cardiac department with cardiovascular diseases and with osteoarthritis will be treated by a team of eminent professionals. Apart from the cardiac surgeons performing surgery, there will be physician making the preliminary diagnosis and regular checkups, several levels of nurses like senior registered nurses, enrolled nurse s dividing the regular caring interventions, the dietician who will be fixing the diet, the physiotherapists who will be providing the physiotherapy, the podiatrists helping with foot ulcers and many others (Boet et al., 2014). All the eminent healthcare practitioners have their own models of treatment and consider themselves to be providing the best to their patients. However here plays a silent power struggles that ordinary patients are not usually aware of. Often disagreements and conflict among the roles and the intensity of the power of the particular healthcare professionals arise. It has been researched by eminent researchers who have stated that issues with roles and roles of boundaries along with the lack of proper cumulative decision making are often observed in the Australian Healthcare systems. These implements an idea that issues of power and authority are important factors in these types of relationships and has often acted as the components that influence the patterns of hierarch and collaboration (Pecukonis, 2014). Many researches have been conducted over the year to find the main factors that had contributed to the development of such hierarchical system within the healthcare organisation in spite of every healthcare practitioner having the same aim of saving patients life and giving them a better quality life. They have come up with factors like trust and respect often acts as enablers whereas mistrust, ego clashes, perceived lack of respect, dominancy, financial strength and many others often act as barriers and are the main reason that had resulted to the rise of power struggle and hierarchical system among the different healthcare practitioners. Often researchers have used research dependency theories as well as transaction cost analysis in order to venture the different types of collaborations that arte present among different healthcare organisation in Australia. Researchers have suggested that the tactic of collaboration often depend on the function of the requirement of different resources. The organisations tend to collaborate among themselves only when they tend to require resources as often need for resources can create uncertainties and hence dependencies (Liang et al., 2014). However the organisations try their best to maintain their hierarchical position by the reduction in the dependencies at the same time for maintaining the autonomy but at the same time pursue their main interests. Researchers also suggest that dependency theory of the resources put focus on the importance of resource for different healthcare centres and also shows how concentration of resources by different organisations determines the nature o f interdependency, hierarchical status as well as the power relations that exist among the healthcare organisations. Transaction cost analysis has been used by many researchers to describe the function of governance arrangements which helps in the regulation of different relationships and also at the same time point the different uncertainties that surrounds the behaviour of different organisations particularly trustworthiness and open mindedness (Thomson et al., 2015). A strong sense of power battle and hierarchical turfs seem to exist between the power practiced by the eminent individuals of the healthcare trustees and higher authorities and the different healthcare professionals working under them in the hospitals. Scientists have described power in two categories which includes those individuals who experience the formal authority to make decisions and who control the different forms of resources. Other are the individuals who has less tangible aspects of symbolic power or the ability to control ideas and derive meanings. The power struggles that usually arise due to different types of unequal professional status usually belong to the second category of power struggles. Distribution of both intangible as well as tangible resources among different kinds of inter-organisational relationships determines the different types of strategies of engagement, like those choices of strategies that exist between the cooperation as well as conflicts. As the r esearchers are advising to include social health model and psychological model in biomedical systems making it a bio-psychosocial model, often there had been establishments of social, cultural and professionals systems and hence different power imbalances are experienced by individuals from each domain when working together (Palaganos, Epps Raemer, 2014). It has been found by researchers that doctors are the one in the hierarchy of the health care professionals who traditionally defend their own professional autonomy as well as independence and also professional status when they try to maintain relationships with other healthcare workers. Often turf wars may be of both inter professionals as well as intra-professionals. Often situational context of power are also visible where medical dominance decides the relationships between the healthcare professionals in the hospital settings. It has been seen that the Australian healthcare systems are such that it possesses two levels of government which make different types of planning, policy as well as service delivery. The system completely lacks the integration between different types of initiatives and they are completely detached from each other. Often different power practice also depends on other factors. The primary healthcare sector of Australia consists of a large number of health professions, disciplines and practitioners who work in private sectors and also in different public sectors. These sectors again vary in size and also in complexity and also receive different types of funding systems (Renedo et al., 2015). These different types of distribution of funding and resources and different types of technologies and supports often create a hierarchical inequality and hence concept of power is often apprehended by different professionals and different ways and there is lack of proper collaboration. GPs and oth er healthcare professionals in private sectors work through fee-for-service- basis whereas public health professionals through block funding arrangement (Kem Chung, 2014). Due to these systems, often there is lack of proper communication and lack of proper relationship building initiatives. This ultimately results in power struggle in the long run creating issues among healthcare practitioners Often power dynamics are explained with three different types of factors. These are the use of different professional power to protect autonomy, reduction of different professional dependency to maintain different types of power and also different powers between private as well as different public sector providers. Although many policies have been released to support more inclusion of practitioners in shared decision making with the least scope of applying powers but very few effective results were seen. Moreover the GPs were seen to engage in very low levels of collaboration with that of the other allied healthcare professionals and this often resulted in tensions and stresses among the relationships of different individuals (Ebert et al., 2014). Researchers have stated that it most secondary services bases their decisions more on their internal capacity as well as their own power and roles than the requirements of GPs and referring patients to others. These mainly arise due to powe r conflicts like having who has the power to make referral decisions. Power has been proposed to be experienced in different levels that include inter-organisational, inter-professional as well as intra-professional relationships who participate in shifting of power in the balance of power. Professional hierarchies as well as the traditional power relations are experienced by all o them and are called the dark side of organisational relationships (Mckee et al., 2013). Healthcare organisations which engage into a collaborative approach in each and every level with different stakeholders can ensure more patient safety and hence can ensure more fame and word of mouth publicity. It has been found that the teams which are formed on the basis of trust are more collaborative in their approaches. These collaboration should be based in different levels such as the between the hospital authority and the healthcare practitioners, between the authority and the technicians and the companies providing technological supports, between the different healthcare practitioners and the nurses, the different specialist and others. The better the development of trust and proper relationship bonding, the better are the chances of effective treatment of the patients reducing their suffering and providing quick services. Power struggles have always had a negative impact on the health care organisations and therefore it should be made sure that proper initiatives should be taken through policies on a urgent bass that will help in addressing this hidden power struggles and would try to minimise the harmful effects and promote better collaborative approaches in every levels. References: Aveyard, H. (2014).Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Berkman, L. F., Kawachi, I., Glymour, M. M. (2014).Social epidemiology. Oxford University Press. Boet, S., Bould, M. D., Layat Burn, C., Reeves, S. (2014). Twelve tips for a successful interprofessional team-based high-fidelity simulation education session.Medical teacher,36(10), 853-857. Braveman, P., Gottlieb, L. (2014). The social determinants of health: it's time to consider the causes of the causes.Public health reports,129(1_suppl2), 19-31. Cameron, A., Lart, R., Bostock, L., Coomber, C. (2014). Factors that promote and hinder joint and integrated working between health and social care services: a review of research literature.Health social care in the community,22(3), 225-233. Deacon, B. J. (2013). The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research.Clinical Psychology Review,33(7), 846-861. Ebert, L., Hoffman, K., Levett-Jones, T., Gilligan, C. (2014). They have no idea of what we do or what we know: Australian graduates' perceptions of working in a health care team.Nurse education in practice,14(5), 544-550. Flottorp, S. A., Oxman, A. D., Krause, J., Musila, N. R., Wensing, M., Godycki-Cwirko, M., ... Eccles, M. P. (2013). A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice.Implementation Science,8(1), 35. Kim, J., Chung, K. Y. (2014). Ontology-based healthcare context information model to implement ubiquitous environment.Multimedia Tools and Applications,71(2), 873-888. Kuhlmann, E., Burau, V., Correia, T., Lewandowski, R., Lionis, C., Noordegraaf, M., Repullo, J. (2013). A manager in the minds of doctors: a comparison of new modes of control in European hospitals.BMC Health Services Research,13(1), 246. Liang, Y., Zhou, X., Yu, Z., Guo, B. (2014). Energy-efficient motion related activity recognition on mobile devices for pervasive healthcare.Mobile Networks and Applications,19(3), 303-317. McKee, L., Charles, K., Dixon-Woods, M., Willars, J., Martin, G. (2013). Newand distributed leadership in quality and safety in health care, or oldand hierarchical? An interview study with strategic stakeholders.Journal of health services research policy,18(2_suppl), 11-19. Palaganas, J. C., Epps, C., Raemer, D. B. (2014). A history of simulation-enhanced interprofessional education.Journal of interprofessional care,28(2), 110-115. Pecukonis, E. (2014). Interprofessional education: a theoretical orientation incorporating profession-centrism and social identity theory.The Journal of Law, Medicine Ethics,42(2_suppl), 60-64. Pincus, T., Chua, J. R., Gibson, K. A. (2016). Evidence from a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) of the Value of a Biopsychosocial Model to Complement a Traditional Biomedical Model in Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Journal of Rheumatic Diseases,23(4), 212-233. Renedo, A., Marston, C. A., Spyridonidis, D., Barlow, J. (2015). Patient and Public Involvement in Healthcare Quality Improvement: How organizations can help patients and professionals to collaborate.Public Management Review,17(1), 17-34. Sims, S., Hewitt, G., Harris, R. (2015). Evidence of a shared purpose, critical reflection, innovation and leadership in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis.Journal of Interprofessional Care,29(3), 209-215. Thomson, K., Outram, S., Gilligan, C., Levett-Jones, T. (2015). Interprofessional experiences of recent healthcare graduates: A social psychology perspective on the barriers to effective communication, teamwork, and patient-centred care.Journal of interprofessional care,29(6), 634-640.