Action on the IOM Report: A Critical Analysis

by | Jun 29, 2024 | Management

 

Action on the IOM Report
An Institute of Medicine (IOM, 1999) report was a wake-up call for both the general public and healthcare providers regarding the problem and tragic consequences of medical errors. According to the report brief, “At least 44,000 people, and perhaps as many as 98,000 people, die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented” (IOM, 1999, p. 1). The report recommends a four-tiered approach as a strategy for addressing this problem. Read the IOM report.
These actions have been evaluated in recent years through several approaches. For this assignment, read the initial IOM (1999) report and then evaluate how the healthcare system has responded to each of the four recommendations made in the report. Use two resources to find information about how the US healthcare system is acting on the four recommendations in the IOM report. You may use journal articles, government reports, reports or findings of public organizations, and other authoritative sources. The following are resources of information on the recommendations as well:
The first recommendation (about creating leadership) refers to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Use the AHRQ website.
The third recommendation (about actions of oversight organizations, professional groups, and group purchasers of healthcare) identifies The Leapfrog Group.
Health Policy Brief provides an overview of implementations of this report as well.
Respond to the following:
Which of the IOM recommendations do you feel provides the greatest impact on patient safety? Why?
Assess the US healthcare system’s actions regarding the four recommendations in the IOM report. Which recommendation provides the most impact on patient safety? Which provides the least? Justify your answer.
Provide an overall assessment of how the US healthcare system is performing with regard to patient safety in response to the IOM recommendations.

Sample solution

Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell. 

In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.


This question has been answered

God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.

Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.

To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.

 

References

Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.

Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.

Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.

Sample Answer

Sample Answer

 

Action on the IOM Report: A Critical Analysis

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report released in 1999 shed light on the alarming rate of medical errors in healthcare settings, emphasizing the need for immediate action to prevent avoidable deaths. The report revealed that tens of thousands of people were dying annually due to medical errors that could have been prevented. In response to this crisis, the IOM put forth a four-tiered approach aimed at improving patient safety within the healthcare system. This essay will delve into an assessment of the US healthcare system’s actions regarding the four recommendations outlined in the IOM report, analyzing their impact on patient safety and providing an overall evaluation of the system’s performance in response to these recommendations.

Thesis Statement:

The recommendation concerning creating leadership within healthcare organizations is the most impactful in enhancing patient safety, as it sets the tone for a culture of accountability and continuous improvement. However, while progress has been made in implementing some of the IOM recommendations, challenges remain in fully addressing all aspects of patient safety within the US healthcare system.

The Impactful Recommendation: Creating Leadership

The first recommendation proposed by the IOM report focuses on establishing strong leadership within healthcare organizations. This recommendation emphasizes the importance of fostering a culture that prioritizes patient safety, encourages transparency, and promotes open communication regarding medical errors. Effective leadership is crucial in driving organizational change, implementing best practices, and holding staff accountable for patient outcomes. By empowering leaders to champion patient safety initiatives, organizations can create a culture of continuous learning and improvement, ultimately reducing the incidence of medical errors and enhancing patient outcomes.

Assessment of US Healthcare System’s Actions

1. Creating Leadership: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has played a pivotal role in supporting initiatives aimed at promoting leadership in patient safety within healthcare organizations. Through research, funding, and dissemination of best practices, AHRQ has helped healthcare leaders develop strategies to enhance patient safety culture and implement quality improvement initiatives.

2. Oversight Organizations and Professional Groups: The actions of oversight organizations like The Leapfrog Group have contributed to improving patient safety by advocating for transparency, quality metrics, and accountability within healthcare settings. By leveraging data-driven approaches and collaboration with professional groups, oversight organizations have driven positive changes in patient safety practices.

3. Health Policy Implementation: Health Policy Briefs have provided valuable insights into the implementation of IOM recommendations, highlighting successes and challenges faced by the US healthcare system in enhancing patient safety. These briefs serve as a roadmap for policymakers and healthcare leaders to prioritize patient safety initiatives and address gaps in current practices.

Overall Assessment

While significant strides have been made in implementing the IOM recommendations, there are still areas that require improvement within the US healthcare system. The recommendation on creating leadership stands out as the most impactful in driving cultural change and improving patient safety outcomes. However, challenges persist in fully integrating all four recommendations into practice, with varying degrees of impact on patient safety.

In conclusion, the US healthcare system has made commendable efforts in responding to the IOM report’s recommendations on patient safety. By prioritizing leadership development, fostering collaboration among oversight organizations and professional groups, and leveraging health policy briefs, progress has been achieved in enhancing patient safety practices. Moving forward, sustained commitment to implementing all aspects of the IOM recommendations is essential to ensure continuous improvement in patient safety outcomes within the US healthcare system.

 

 

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer