Part 1

Discussion #1:

Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:

• How is the risk management issue that you selected currently being addressed?
• What risk management gaps exist in health care or hospital risk management? Based on industry literature, how would you address these gaps?
• What strategies would you use to communicate the risk management gaps with leadership and the rest of the team?
• Include your own experience as well as two citations that align with or contradict your comments as sourced from peer-reviewed academic journals, industry publications, books, and/or other sources. Cite your sources using APA formatting. If you found contradicting information to what your experience tells you, explain why you agree or disagree with the research.

Discussion #2:

Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:

• Discuss the Nebraska Hospital Medical Liability Act (NHMLA), the Nebraska Excess Liability Fund (NELF), and medical malpractice laws.
• Identify how medical malpractice laws protect providers.
• Discuss how medical malpractice laws impact a patient’s ability to receive compensation when there is proof of medical malpractice and resulting harm.

Part 2

Student Responses:

Student Response 1: Student response 1: Review the classmates’ posts and respond to at least one in a minimum of 150 words. Explain why you agree or disagree. Then, share an example from your professional experience to support your assertions.

There is compelling evidence of the negative impacts of language barriers and reliance on untrained interpreters on health and healthcare (Bowen et al., 2010). Not having available trained translators when patients come to the clinic is a risk management issue. Language barriers result in a host of problems that cause risk to the patients like delayed presentation for care in non-urgent situations; avoidance of needed care; increased risks of misdiagnosis; poorer patient understanding of and adherence to prescribed treatment; lower patient satisfaction; lower quality of care; increased risk of experiencing adverse events; poorer management of the chronic disease; and poorer health outcomes (Bowen et al., 2010). Instead of investing, most healthcare systems rely on phone translators and family members as a cost-effective way to address linguistic issues. The risks of language barriers and the use of services of untrained interpreters to both the health of individuals and the health system itself have been well documented (Bowen et al., 2010). Addressing language barriers is the one strategy for improving organizational cultural competence with theoretical and practical evidence linking it to improved health outcomes (Brach & Fraser, 2000).

The first step to communicating risk would be to engage the risk manager and make them aware of the issue and how the unavailability of trained translators presents a threat to providing quality patient care. Presenting well-documented evidence would be the strategy used to inform leadership so they understand the importance of hiring skilled medical translators. An outline would be provided, depicting the financial implications of failing to address language barriers appropriately: increased use of high-intensity services and decreased use of primary care services; costs related to misdiagnosis and repeat visits; and costs of longer lengths of stay (Bowen et al., 2010). Thus, justifying how translation services could significantly reduce linguistic barriers, changing the healthcare experience for non-English speaking patients and improving their health outcomes.

References:

Bowen, S., Gibbens, M., Roy, J., & Edwards, J. (2010). From ‘multicultural health to ‘knowledge translation’. Rethinking strategies to promote language access within a risk management framework. Jostrans, 14, 145-164. https://jostrans.org/issue14/art_bowen.pdf

Brach, C., & Fraserirector, I. (2000). Can cultural competency reduce racial and ethnic health disparities? A review and conceptual model. Medical Care Research and Review, 57(1_suppl), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558700057001S09

Student Response 2: Student response 1: Review the classmates’ posts and respond to at least one in a minimum of 150 words. Explain why you agree or disagree. Then, share an example from your professional experience to support your assertions.

The Nebraska Hospital Medical Liability Act (NHMLA) and the Nebraska Excess Liability Fund (NELF) are significant components of medical malpractice laws in Nebraska, which aim to protect healthcare providers and patients alike (Adomako et al., 2018). In Book II, “The Aftermath of the Nebraska Outbreak,” of A Never Event, the implications of these laws are explored in the context of the Nebraska healthcare system.

The NHMLA was enacted in Nebraska to regulate medical malpractice claims against healthcare providers, including physicians, nurses, and hospitals. It establishes guidelines for the submission and resolution of medical malpractice claims, including the requirement of a certificate of merit, which must be obtained from a qualified expert, stating that there is a reasonable basis for the claim (Nebraska Revised Statutes, §§ 44-2801 to 44-2829). The NHMLA also sets a cap on damages, limiting the amount that can be awarded to a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit, which varies depending on the type of defendant and the nature of the injury (Nebraska Revised Statutes, §§ 44-2825).

On the other hand, the NELF is a state-run excess liability fund that provides additional coverage to healthcare providers beyond the limits set by the NHMLA. Healthcare providers fund it and provide a source of compensation for patients who have suffered harm due to medical malpractice (Nebraska Department of Insurance, 2019).

These laws aim to protect healthcare providers by limiting their liability and providing them with a predictable system for resolving medical malpractice claims. By requiring a certificate of merit, the NHMLA helps to ensure that claims are based on expert opinions, reducing the likelihood of frivolous lawsuits (Adomako et al., 2018). The cap on damages limits the financial exposure of healthcare providers, preventing excessive payouts that could financially burden providers or impact their ability to continue practicing medicine (Nebraska Revised Statutes, §§ 44-2825).

At the same time, these laws also impact a patient’s ability to receive compensation when there is proof of medical malpractice and resulting harm. The cap on damages set by the NHMLA can limit a patient’s compensation, even if the harm is severe (Adomako et al., 2018). This may result in patients receiving less than the full extent of their damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The requirement of a certificate of merit may also present a barrier for patients in obtaining legal representation and pursuing their claims, as it adds steps and cost to the legal process (Nebraska Revised Statutes, §§ 44-2801 to 44-2829).

Furthermore, the NELF, as a state-run fund, may also have limitations regarding the amount of compensation it can provide or the types of cases it can cover. Patients who cannot obtain compensation from the NELF may face challenges in seeking redress for their injuries (Nebraska Department of Insurance, 2019).

In conclusion, the NHMLA, NELF, and medical malpractice laws in Nebraska aim to balance protecting healthcare providers and ensuring patients have access to compensation for medical malpractice (Nebraska Department of Insurance, 2019). These laws provide a structured framework for handling medical malpractice claims. Still, they may also limit a patient’s ability to receive total compensation for proven medical malpractice and resulting harm. Healthcare providers and patients alike need to understand the intricacies of these laws and seek legal counsel when navigating medical malpractice claims in Nebraska.