Surgical Case Study As a new CEO of a small hospital, in rural outstate of Minnesota, it is critical for me to carefully research and investigate Dr. Brown’s surgical case, prior to removing his surgical privileges. This is because there are multiple ethical and legal factors that need to be considered relating to Dr. Brown’s practice. According to the report from Mike, the surgery manager, Dr. Brown lacked surgical skills and may have a potential harm to patients. This is because Mike was able to observe Dr. Brown’s habit of operating on a patient’s neck without knowing the anatomy of a neck. There are past instances where Dr. Brown “attempted a routine hemorrhoidectomy that became an involved surgery”. However, as the new CEO, I do not know
…show more content…
Brown is a board certified family physician. Dr. Brown receives his surgical privileges many years ago when he joined the staff at the rural hospital. This surgical privilege allows Dr. Brown to practice colonoscopies, C-sections, vasectomies, hemorrhoidectomies, and lump and bump surgeries which he had been trained to do during his residency. However, the case does not say if Dr. Brown is a board certified surgeon or how long his surgical privileges last. According to the Board of Medicine regulation for Minnesota, physician assistants should practice medicine only with physician supervision (Minnesota Statutes, 2009). In Dr. Brown’s case, Dr. Brown should be considered a physician assistant because he is not a board certified surgeon. The evidence in Dr. Brown’s case shows he receives surgical privileges to practice during his residency. Before anyone can practice, they need to have a license (Minnesota Statute, 2015). What this suggests is Dr. Brown is legally licensed to practice and is still a resident practicing surgery. The ethical principle that will most support this case is the principle of …show more content…
Brown’s surgical privilege provide the greatest good for all the stake holders: Mike, Dr. Brown, the Board of medicine and the CEO, which is me. According to Aristotle’s theory, choosing the best option for the current situation by weighing the pros and cons is the most ethical choice (Morrision, 2015). In this case, Dr. Brown’s practice did not harm anyone, Dr. Brown provided beneficence to ensure his patient’s needs are being met, and he practiced with supervision. On top of this, he is the reason why the hospital was able to offset their poor inpatient reimbursement cost. By removing Dr. Brown’s surgical privileges, it would do more harm than good. For instance, Dr. Brown’s surgical career will be put to an end or he could turn around and file legal actions against the hospital. This is because he did not violate any rules and regulations and or harm anyone as a resident. It is the surgeon’s duty to supervise Dr. Brown during his residency. Any harm done to the patient is also the surgeon’s fault due to the lack of supervision. In addition to this, involving the board of medicine prior to knowing the full story behind Dr. Brown’s privilege to practice can be name damaging to the
Brown is a board certified family physician. Dr. Brown receives his surgical privileges many years ago when he joined the staff at the rural hospital. This surgical privilege allows Dr. Brown to practice colonoscopies, C-sections, vasectomies, hemorrhoidectomies, and lump and bump surgeries which he had been trained to do during his residency. However, the case does not say if Dr. Brown is a board certified surgeon or how long his surgical privileges last. According to the Board of Medicine regulation for Minnesota, physician assistants should practice medicine only with physician supervision (Minnesota Statutes, 2009). In Dr. Brown’s case, Dr. Brown should be considered a physician assistant because he is not a board certified surgeon. The evidence in Dr. Brown’s case shows he receives surgical privileges to practice during his residency. Before anyone can practice, they need to have a license (Minnesota Statute, 2015). What this suggests is Dr. Brown is legally licensed to practice and is still a resident practicing surgery. The ethical principle that will most support this case is the principle of …show more content…
Brown’s surgical privilege provide the greatest good for all the stake holders: Mike, Dr. Brown, the Board of medicine and the CEO, which is me. According to Aristotle’s theory, choosing the best option for the current situation by weighing the pros and cons is the most ethical choice (Morrision, 2015). In this case, Dr. Brown’s practice did not harm anyone, Dr. Brown provided beneficence to ensure his patient’s needs are being met, and he practiced with supervision. On top of this, he is the reason why the hospital was able to offset their poor inpatient reimbursement cost. By removing Dr. Brown’s surgical privileges, it would do more harm than good. For instance, Dr. Brown’s surgical career will be put to an end or he could turn around and file legal actions against the hospital. This is because he did not violate any rules and regulations and or harm anyone as a resident. It is the surgeon’s duty to supervise Dr. Brown during his residency. Any harm done to the patient is also the surgeon’s fault due to the lack of supervision. In addition to this, involving the board of medicine prior to knowing the full story behind Dr. Brown’s privilege to practice can be name damaging to the