In medicine, nursing practice often refers both to science and to art. Science in terms of evidence-based practice, is where the practitioners combine their comprehension of health sciences, diseases, and illnesses. Art is in terms of the practitioner’s ability to incorporate or adapt to individual situations and patients while thinking about enhancing patient outcomes (Hansson and Froding, 2021). However, the two concepts in nursing are often at odds mainly due to the understanding that the best evidence is not a size-fit experience. Practical clinical judgment entails integrating a nurse’s accumulated educational background and knowledge wealth from patient experiences.
Combining clinical expertise requires combining evidence-based practice, allowing patients to choose their treatment plans. Moreover, in the absence of options, patients have difficulty making choices. On the other hand, incorporating patient preferences might result in making decisions based on personal beliefs and priorities, cultural and spiritual values, and quality life-related thoughts (Brown, 2018). While practitioners comprehend they must incorporate patient preferences in decision-making, often this fails due to literacy, time constraints, race, gender, past knowledge, and sociocultural influence barriers. An example of patient preference-clinical expertise conflict is holism vs. patient-physician privacy. First, holism entails a holistic understanding of the patient’s needs, where physicians incorporate their comprehension of the patients in treating them (Brown, 2018). Moreover, it considers life issues, emotional needs, and the patient’s whole person, which is achieved through the patient narrative.
The holism conflict in patient preference and clinical expertise becomes evident when asked for their life’s narrative. The failure to comprehend the narrative encourages patients to reveal sensitive private information like extra-marital affairs, psychological issues, and family conflict (Hansson and Froding, 2021). Often, the conflict arises when patients fail to realize the extent of information in their treatment plan. When encouraged to conversate about such sensitive matters, patients mistakenly presume every piece of information is medically relevant. Arguably, it’s the right of patients not to share sensitive information if it does not improve their treatment plan (Brown, 2018). Therefore, the ethical conflict associated with holism manifests when on the one hand, patient narrative usefulness results in a better understanding of the patient’s health circumstance. On the other hand, the conflict associated with the realization soliciting this information will infringe the patient’s privacy.
One way to handle this conflict is first to define a holistic approach to the patient bringing them on board with the requirements of the approach in treatment. Once patients understand the significance of patient narrative in their treatment, they become familiar with what the provided information will do in how they are treated. It is essential to point out that this awareness will enable patients to share content to help in their treatment and avoid sharing unnecessary sensitive information. The other way the conflict can be handled is by minimizing the possibility of unethical privacy intrusion. Some patients have been known to develop a distressing experience that potentially declines how they attain their therapeutic goals (Hansson and Froding, 2021). When patients work not based on presumption but knowledge, they comprehend the extent to which they are expected to reveal their information. Through such an understanding, patients are better positioned to evaluate the information they divulge while at the same time, they are comprehending their role in minimizing the risks associated with the sharing of sensitive information.
References
Brown R. (2018). Resisting moralization in health promotion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice: An International Forum, 21(4), 997–1011. Web.
Hansson, S. O., & Froding, B. (2021). Ethical conflicts in patient-centered care.Clinical Ethics, 16, 2, 55-66. Web.
Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Meta-synthesis: An original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry. Frontiers in psychiatry, 8, 269. Web.
Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2018). Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis methodologies: Rigorously piecing together research.Technological Trends, 62(5), 525-534. Web.
Lee Y. H. (2018). An overview of meta-analysis for clinicians. The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 33(2), 277–283. Web.
Moeyaert, M. (2019). Quantitative synthesis of research evidence: Multilevel meta-analysis.Behavioral Disorders, 44(4), 241-256. Web.