Discrimination in the Emergency Department

on that point is discrimination in the indispensability section because of the need for health criminal maintenance workers to implement standards in determine the extent of stop of longanimouss brought to the pinch section for treatment for purposes of prioritization. It is in the process of screening the fatality of patient roles brought or seeking treatment in the incision that discrimination exceeds, through the ineffective or control lotion of objectives and master copy standards during the screening, flawed or baseless screening results, and weak prioritization endings.Discrimination in the emergency department could occur on the part of individual health accusation workers or due to the policies implemented by the emergency department. As such, the solution could require institution-wide effort in ensuring the execution of instrument of sound policies for the emergency department together with an anti-discrimination culture encompassing the professional prac tice and actions of individual emergency health finagle workers. An emergency pertains to the every critical situation or career-threatening condition.Since the definition is broad, it allows health care workers in the emergency department means to exercise judgment in deciding what scenarios comprise an emergency. Common criteria applied in find out an emergency include unconscious patients rushed to the infirmary, potential stroke victims, patients identified to have suffered serious bank line loss, or patients with broken bones especially if this involves the spinal column. (National Health Service, 2007)When the emergency department faces one or more of these criteria, together with other similar intervening factors, especially when many cases are received, the people in charge of the emergency department have to engender decisions on a deem of issues. The wide-range of allowance for individualized judgment of health care professionals in the emergency department (Abereg g, Arkes & Terry, 2006) together with the need to make decisions with limited time requiring screening skills and capture as well as the implementation of objective professional standards (Gulland, 2003) opens room for biases and subjectivity.First decision is on whether the cases taken singly comprise an emergency (Aberegg, Arkes & Terry, 2006). If so, then the case is considered for emergency action. If not, then the case is referred to the appropriate department. However, the determination of whether the cases constitutes an emergency should be made using professional standards to prevent the interpolation of discriminatory practices such as considering a case as an emergency not because it constitutes a life threatening situations but because of biases against one case intercourse to the other cases (Gulland, 2003).Second decision is the prioritization of all the cases determined as emergencies, brought to the emergency department at one time or in a given stream (Aberegg, Arkes & Terry, 2006). The emergency department operates 24/7 so that personnel work on a turn on basis resulting to a minimum number of personnel on standby at one time.The number of personnel on standby depends on the trends in emergency cases base on the experience of the hospital and expected periods of the occurrence of emergencies such as forest fires and heat waves during the summer. With limited personnel, mounting cases can make prioritization difficult especially when cases are comparable in terms of the extent of seriousness of the health care need (Gulland, 2003). In these situations, prioritization is a necessity but decisions have requires justification.During decision-making, discrimination could occur such as when white patients are prioritized over a black patient regardless of the extent of the life-threatening condition or younger patients are prioritized over geriatric patients even if the older patients require more adjacent treatment and the availability of h ealth care professionals in the emergency department allows the prioritization of the geriatric patient.Third related decision is the action to be taken on the case, such as immediate treatment of the patient, referral of the patient to the health care personnel suited in handling the particular case, denial of treatment for certain reasons, referral of the patient for transfer to another health care facility, and other case-based actions (Aberegg, Arkes & Terry, 2006). Even if prioritization decisions are justifiable, action or implementation relating to the decision could involve discrimination such as when better service is extended to specific patients relative to other patients involved in comparable emergencies.Overall, discrimination in the emergency department could include biases based on race or ethnicity, gender, age, economic status, or other views expressed in the three areas of decision-making antecedently discussed. This means that discrimination in the emergency depa rtment is multi-faceted. In addition, the degree of preventive of discrimination varies. The intervention of discrimination in the emergency department, from the perspective of emergency health care workers, could include either or both personal and professional bias.Personal bias refers to subjective opinion of a person as against the patient or the circumstances of the case that could affect screening and intervention judgments. Professional bias pertains to the views of the health care workers regarding the condition of the patient, the emergencies, the intervention, and the role they play in this specific situation based on the knowledge and experience of the professional. Both could overlap and operate in creating discrimination in the emergency department. (Gulland, 2003 Aberegg, Arkes & Terry, 2006)Based on the manifestations and causes of discrimination in the emergency department, a number of solutions become apparent. One is the efficient organization of the emergency dep artment in anticipation of life threatening cases at any time. (Gulland, 2003) Since the number of available staff and the direct of cooking of the emergency department determines the creation of opportunities for discrimination since only a small number of emergency cases brought to the emergency department can be addressed.Another solution is the increase and continuous enhancement of the operational infrastructures of the emergency department including policies and guidelines in compliance with legal and professional standards, flexible budget and personnel allocation to the department, sound gentlemans gentleman resource management strategies, organizational culture grounded on objectivity, and other necessities in supporting the high level of preparedness and efficiency of the emergency department (Interpretive Guidelines, 2005).This solution also works in confining the opportunities for discriminatory action in the emergency department. Still another solution is the appli cation of training and development programs in compliance with the principle of continuous learning. This means that health care workers assigned to the emergency department undergo continuous learning programs to update their knowledge and skills to be able to accommodate developments in professional practice as well as emerging issues arising in professional practice in the emergency department.(Gulland, 2003)When this happens, the likelihood of discrimination lessens because updated information supports the achievement of more objective professional judgments or decisions on issues and challenges confront by the emergency department. Although the emergency department involves a wide-room for judgment and decision-making on the part of health care workers in the emergency department as well as poor support infrastructural support and organizing inefficiencies, which stimulate situations that give rise to discrimination, the causes of discrimination in the emergency department are preventable by addressing these causes.