Introduction
The primary issues emerging from the case are patient compliance, the application of constant pressure for compliance when a claim is filed, and the need to provide a certificate of merit to support complaints. Patient compliance is vital to their health and the care delivery process since it determines patient outcomes (Aremu et al., 2022). Healthcare professionals expect their patients to comply with physician instructions to help manage their illnesses.
Discussion
The case presents a patient who failed to comply with physician instructions, leading to unprecedented impacts on the infant (Kaplan, 2019). The issue of patient compliance is crucial in the case as it determines whether the case has merit to move forward according to court proceedings. Determining patient compliance emerges as a vital element in the care of the patient and their health outcomes, along with determining the health outcomes when a patient alleges the lack of proper care.
The plaintiff had challenges explaining the injury, which allowed the defense to prove that the mother was noncompliant with the recommended care. The legal team applied constant pressure for compliance and sought to see evidence of a certificate of merit to measure the validity of a case. Issues of noncompliance can emerge from the patient (Naghavi et al., 2019).
Patients have an equal responsibility in their care to adhere to compliance requirements as physicians practice in accordance with the standard guidelines. Therefore, the legal team required the patient to support her claim with a certificate of merit to ensure that the claims could be validated by a professional who could attest to the lack of compliance by the physician. The mother’s failure to provide one showed the difficulty in explaining the injury. The defense also required a probe into the compliance of the patient with the recommended care. As evidenced in the case, the defense managed to avoid lengthy court processes by applying constant pressure on patient compliance and a certificate of merit proving non-compliance.
I agree with the outcomes of the case due to three reasons. First, legal action against care providers should be based on facts that can be proven instead of speculation from patients. The provision of care is a complex process that relies on standards of practice to ensure quality outcomes (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2020). The process involves several stakeholders, with the patient and practitioners being the primary parties involved. Physicians follow guidelines in their practice to avoid harm, achieve positive outcomes, and adhere to ethical guidelines. The guidelines are essential in addressing factors like noncompliance, as has emerged in this case.
Patients are expected to follow physicians’ guidelines regarding medication, appointments, and practices that maintain or improve their health. The patient presents a good case that is supported by some research that has been done on the topic. However, the formulation of her claim is devoid of her role in health outcomes, making it essential for the defense to consider her contribution towards the results.
The second reason is that care provision is a science, and cases against practitioners rely on real data and are supported by professionals in the field to gain merit. The plaintiff failed to consider that part of the science supporting her case was the environment the mother created for her infant through healthcare compliance (Kaplan, 2019). The defense must assess all facts about the case, and highlighting the role of the mother in contributing to the infant’s complication is part of the science that should be argued in the case. Physicians practice based on science and will rely on the same science to defend themselves when their clients claim non-compliance.
Conclusion
Therefore, it was essential for the legal team to put pressure on patient compliance and the existence of a professional to support the claims based on scientific facts, which proved to be the reason for dismissal. The third reason for agreeing with the results is that the defense team managed to prove that the mother’s noncompliance contributed to her injury and the practitioners were not blamed. The plaintiff had the burden to prove that the injury was caused by her care providers, which she failed and helped with the dismissal of her case.
References
Aremu, T. O., Oluwole, O. E., Adeyinka, K. O., & Schommer, J. C. (2022). Medication adherence and compliance: Recipe for improving patient outcomes. Pharmacy, 10(5), 106. Web.
Kaplan, A. I. (2019). If a patient is noncompliant, can the ob/gyn be at fault? Contemporary OB/GYN. Web.
Naghavi, S., Mehrolhassani, M. H., Nakhaee, N., & Yazdi-Feyzabadi, V. (2019). Effective factors in non-compliance with therapeutic orders of specialists in outpatient clinics in Iran: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 413. Web.
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2020). Essentials of health policy and law (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.