Ethical precautions designs may not be suitable for evidence-based practice testing since they limit the space for collecting, analyzing, and making decisions. Furthermore, the legal protections placed on scientific-related data reduce data processing and usage based on individual subjects. According to Favaretto et al. (2020), medical researchers must comply with the ethical safeguards in a clinical trial to extend their research programs. Additionally, they have to follow all ethical precautions focused on a scientific review to assist them in the core procedures of developing their programs.
In comparison, research-based treatment confirms that the latest knowledge is accessible to healthcare professionals while making multiple healthcare choices in the population. This ensures that clinical trials’ ethical safeguards are not compromised by the protocol or the measures developed to find the proper evidence for the test (Favaretto et al., 2020). However, regardless of the source of the material, the ethical protection designs impact evidence-based practice (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). In this scenario, the evidence-based practice involves incorporating case reports from the investigation and individual subjects to understand more about illnesses. It also includes collecting details from the patient’s original reports to ensure that critical study evidence is accessible.
There are some primary measures or policies to remember when introducing evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) programs. These are leadership reinforcement, internal facilitation through the assessment, performance feedback, and patient education. In other words, evidence-based change refers to systemic policies designed to ensure that formal activities enhance health care quality (Leadbeater et al., 2018). All patients in health care facilities must obtain fair treatment policies in their regular interventions. In this respect, these measures are intended to improve the quality of treatment provided to patients while also providing internal knowledge to assist nurses in incorporating the reforms.
However, the first point of disagreement with the program is that it aims to enhance the standard of clinical services for specific inpatients to the detriment of some patients. Much of the time, the modifications do not have the most appropriate or desirable outcome. Some patients live to the detriment of others, mainly because it is more likely that the caregiver would make a compromise (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). One must recognize that it is difficult to predict whether the programs would work well or similarly for all patients, and we must ensure that they have fair chances for treatments. In certain circumstances, the best thing happens with poor outcomes, which demonstrates the importance of integrity in the therapeutic profession (Leadbeater et al., 2018). All patients must be kept healthy regardless of their situation.
Additionally, measures intended to increase the benefit could be ineffective and waste resources. Some of the deeds are inappropriate since their applicability was not checked before execution, and they may fail to function (Leadbeater et al., 2018). Consequently, interventions that were believed to be the safest and most effective become the worst. Care professionals end up losing valuable hours that could be used on more lucrative operations as a result. This skepticism makes it challenging to advance the use of the evidence-based practice.
Moreover, the behaviors described as an eminence enhancement that could be understood more clearly by a research analysis are contentious. Medical practices are acts that include the use of individual objects or human variation content by scholars. The scientifically validated research benefits from generalizing the results to a superior population. Some of the acts can be applied in a research context to aid in creating a path for an improved variation (Leadbeater et al., 2018). Such alterations make it difficult for some of the activities to be applied because they are called clinical trial behavior, adding a transformation to the medical system.
Controversies and Ethical Principles
According to the ideals of fairness, money should be distributed equally and without prejudice. However, the controversies above suggest little equity in motion, mainly because certain patients may be harmed if they are discriminated against and do not obtain a fair share of their daily treatment as other patients (Leadbeater et al., 2018). Moreover, some of these practices may lead to denial of given resources which raises vital ethical questions. As such, the controversy offends this moral principle in all aspects.
Autonomy is the principle that accords patients the right and freedom to make choices regarding their lifestyles, bodies, and well-being. It is linked to the third debate, which argues that specific evidence-based actions would be developed as a research practice, demonstrating that the patient’s right to make choices is ignored (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). This implies that any treatment implementation that would not enable patients to make clinical decisions should not be used because it violates the legal protections for patient protection.
The principle adheres to the obligation of avoiding damage to patients. According to the controversies, evidence-based practices are not harmless for patients and can inflict injuries, indicating that they are not timeless (Favaretto et al., 2020). The operations should be professional, considering that the controversy suggests that they are not involved, most certainly to the patients’ well-being, meaning that they do not have to be performed for the patent’s protection.
It emphasizes the advantages of performing well, which the given controversies go against. Specifically, the principle indicates that implementing evidence-based actions is seldom easy for clients since some functions may not be applied as planned (Favaretto et al., 2020). Some behaviors may be recommended as part of a research trial rather than actions that help the health system transform the patients’ treatment (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). This suggests the evidence-based decisions that are intended for the patient’s well-being breach ethics.
Beneficence is one of the legal values that draw controversies when it comes to patients’ ethical duties. Primarily, it encourages, protects, and upholds moral rights and responsibilities. Nonetheless, it is essential to communicate with a substantial degree of consistency the functions and responsibilities that the patients would fulfill in the enhancement of healthcare efficiency, for example, when healthcare efficiency is poor (Favaretto et al., 2020). It is essential to recognize the particular aspects in which patients participate and impact a group.
Autonomy applies to a patient’s right to dignity, self-determination, and equality in making healthcare decisions. The healthcare professional is required to value the patient’s decision-making rights over their health. In situations where the patient may be isolated from others to prevent disease transmission, the patient’s autonomy may interfere with the patient’s obligation to enhance health treatment, and the patient may have no alternative and may be exposed to specific medicine without the patient’s consent (Favaretto et al., 2020). For example, if the recipient is suffering from an infectious disease such as tuberculosis, the person may be isolated to prevent further spread. In this case, treatment of the patient’s choosing can be prescribed to combat this infectious disease.
To overcome the identified differences, the therapist should explain to the patient that personal preference may not be appropriate for current situations. Besides, in the case of releasing the details, the insurance professional consults with the individual about which information has been disclosed. This way, patients can understand why certain violations are done and why certain ethical omissions were made. Patients should also be provided with the requisite technical support to assist them accordingly in such cases.
Favaretto, M., De Clercq, E., Briel, M., & Elger, B. (2020). Working through ethics review of big data research projects: An investigation into the experiences of Swiss and American researchers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(4), 339-354. Web.
Leadbeater, B., Dishion, T., Sandler, I., Bradshaw, C., Dodge, K., & Gottfredson. (2018). Ethical challenges in promoting the implementation of preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 19(7), 853-865. Web.
Melnyk, B., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer.