Power Dynamic Restriction to won practice in the state of Florida

Answer

Power Dynamic Restrictions on American Registered Nurse Practitioners in Florida

The American Registered of Nurse Practitioners (ARNP) is a research program that has since 1985 been providing quality research on the guidelines relating to nurse practitioners among other health issues. The program is controlled entirely by a comprehensive Nurse Practitioner database which regulates effective service delivery to patients in Florida among other states. Its resource features are continuously growing with qualified clinical specialists and effective practice settings to allow achievement of set goals for professional improvement. It also advocates for nurses’ rights while in field of practice, and has for a long time diversified on the issue of power restrictions as a main barrier to proper health service delivery to patients. This paper examines power dynamic and its practice on how it restricts ARNP in the state of Florida from owning their own practice.

Power is often considered an inherently dynamic core concept. Power dynamics further describes transfer of authority from the top most position in a nursing organization all the way down to lowest position on a hierarchical basis of informal promises which are considered highly rational. Allocation of power is an evolutionary process that occurs over time, while granting other professional members authority to perform certain duties with regards to their level of education and quality experience. It is very crucial for people to understand how power is allocated in different organizations through development of a dynamic power model.

Power dynamics often serve a crucial purpose as a rewarding mechanism on the top performers and in this case can be attributed to restrictions in prescriptive authority to nurses, through disciplining core subordinates within nursing practices in the city of Florida (Kaplan, 2016). Power has the capability of capturing whether organizations operate their core roles formally and whether officials are professionally accorded with regards to code of conduct in health organizations. Moreover, power dynamics encompass issues of sociology within organizational contexts, while defining why it is crucial to understand life systems within healthcare units.

Power Dynamic Restriction to own practice in the state of Florida

With regards to ARNP’s, power dynamics often provide newly established perspectives for monitoring different unit organizations and the existing differences between how units perform, and why some concepts are often established to adapt to operational changes within varying environments. It allows different departments be able to perform core functions without granting benefits of doubt in operational efficiency. Power dynamics ensure that any changes made to organizations are made public to create a correlation between stakeholders and providers with their clients who in this case are citizens of Florida, the patients. These respective changes must be easily noticeable and observable.

Nursing practice restrictions often interfere with one’s ability to deliver quality and optimal care to patients. It is a very frustrating ideology that affects people both philosophically and practically, leading to a wastage of both valuable resources and quality time that could have otherwise be invested into better developments. Lack of full practice and restricted prescriptive authority are the most limiting factor to nurses’ operational efficiency (Lowery et al., 2016). Consequently, very few states have legislated full authority in making patient prescriptions. Florida is one of the states within which full practice nor full prescriptive authority have not been implemented yet. It is, however, quite clear that both nurses and physicians do quality jobs in controlling patient health issues. This ,therefore, concludes that granting nurses power to prescribe and improve patient’s needed care is a factor that needs to be approved in due course.

Basing on doctor’s arguments against independence in ND Practice, most health physicians oppose implementation of independent practice by NPs. Most of them argue that they can only operate efficiently under a doctor’s supervision by expressing concerns that NPs who operate under limited supervision tend to misdiagnose. Stuart (2014) reflects on lack of potential approaches to diverse life-threatening problems and miss obvious operational ideas like making prescription errors. They equally lack adequate skills on management of patients with complex multisystem diseases and portray a likelihood of ordering extra tests while driving unintended health care costs. None of the studies made have been regarded valid due to debunking (Buppert, 2017). So many errors have been found prevalent within the NP practice as opposed to physician practices, with prevalent NP related cases in management proven to greatly reduce total number of hospital visits incurring low health care costs on organizations.

 In the case of chronic disease management, it was also established that most Nurse Practitioners are well acquainted with managerial practices of controlling such diverse occurrences, attributed to complexities resulting from lifestyle behaviors. Basing on prescription related errors, Dr. Kenneth Brummel-Smith, chair of the department of geriatrics at Florida State University College of Medicine, there is very limited proved evidence that nurse practitioners perfume poorly in care delivery. Therefore, granting nurses a prescriptive authority will definitely improve their approaches to delivering quality acre to their patients. 

Most recent researches are clear on the fact that a nurse practitioners’ scope of practice has outdone the amount of care provided by physicians. Nurse practitioners have further proven to be capable of handling more complicated medical problems. Power granting to nurses will allow their practices to even be more superior to those granted by physicians. Therefore, there is no need to baselessly conclude that health services provided by nurses are unsafe or rather reckless. It will be much better if equal judgement is made upon both physicians and nurse practitioners during quality care delivery. As a matter of fact, most doctors and Nurse Practitioners have similar responsibilities in ensuring that all patients are treated under the best conditions through subjection to highest quality of care. Nurses equally have quality degrees in the field of experience and doctorate education, and should therefore be granted power to run their own operations. The whole idea is not dependent on care providers but to quality of care provided under appropriate and highest professional caliber.

On the concept of physical relationship between Nurse practitioners and independent practices, full practice and prescriptive power will allow the NP’s operate more efficiently and collaboratively (Alligood, 2014). However, it will negatively impact on the operational patterns of the medical physicians. In as much it promotes health care related innovations during healthcare delivery, it is clear that it will equally save doctors a busy operational schedule. Moreover, this will be a great chance for creating a more qualified workforce that can swiftly address emergencies with a good example expressed after the incident of Hurricane Katrina, a point when Nurse Practitioners reached patients on time who otherwise would have been neglected.

Legitimate Power

Legitimate power can be categorized as a coherent power mostly derived from one’s formal positions in a given office setting, that grants one the mandate to control and examine an organization’s hierarchy power or authority. In this case, the overall CEO or president assigned within a given setting is subjected to certain powers of control by virtue of the seat he holds in the corporation. This is a type of power based on reality and precise perception relating to a given concept and by virtue of reality a president upholds in any given frim. It equally focuses on the fact that either employees or personal representatives have the legit power to control activities pertaining their operational context. He or she is often subjected to exerting control measures to all activities within their reach. Therefore, legitimate power forms the bound source of authority with distinct advantages over many other authoritative sources. In short, legitimacy is a dependent variable on rule of was governing any organization, in this case the ARNP’s in Florida.

On the other hand, illegitimate power prevails whenever one cannot get a direct access to a given commodity or position, forcing them to use unruly methods of acquisition. Illegitimacy in medical field describes achieving whatever one wants in a manner that is not acceptable, just and honest according to code of ethics. They view achieving ahead any resultant cost whatever they want a key drive within their professional scope of practice, and will invest whatever it takes provided they achieve it. Most managers within corporate health organizations regulate operational standards through exerting pressure on the call of duty and positional power he or she holds. However, to some extent, it is the same corporation law that drives major factors in healthcare provision. This is a position that can lead one into making unmeaningful restrictions against how different states should actually operate. Some people suffer such circumstances since it is obvious that one has adhere to organizational objectives and specific directives granted to him by the managerial board.

Granting nurses the power to equalized practice and prescriptive authority in power dynamics is ultimately necessary for proper functioning without interference with the current operational systems in field of practice. It will allow nurses to perfect their operational skills while offering streamlined and efficient care to patients. It will equally create an opportunity to for doctors to make better use of their working times to increase amount of quality care provided in all healthcare units.

are assumptions that employed, making the study’s findings to be little reliable and valid. For instance, the researchers suppose that most participants preferred part-time working as opposed to full-time working since employees want to have a gratifying balance between relaxation and work in their individual lives (Guest, MacQueen and Namey 2012). Such assumptions do not auger well with research when there is a plethora of studies that have been done on the issue that would have provided substantive prof for the preference of part-time over full-time work schedules. 

The study’s findings were limited with regard to the STREAM approach that was employed. While the framework allowed the researchers to conduct targeted studies on factors that possibly influence working beyond retirement, there are other factors that are excluded by the framework, like purpose in life. The researchers, therefore, did good to slightly stretch past the framework to incorporate the purpose in life theme.

The researchers also convoluted the discussion section by including strengths and weaknesses of the study. In a well-organized work, the strengths and weaknesses of a paper should be covered under a separate heading. Nonetheless, the researchers did good to comprehensively discuss the limitations and strengths of their study.

Conclusion

The paper restates the objective of the study and summarizes the findings of the study as required. Similarly, the researchers state the significance of the study, noting that it would contribute to the development of work-associated interventions that would enhance extended working life for employees aged 65+ years. However, the conclusion does not provide gaps for further studies and his gives a false impression on the reliability and validity of the study. 

Suggestions for Further Research

For more robust findings, a similar study could be conducted with the number of women and men participants kept at balance and that the participants should be of better health. In the study by Sewdas et al. (2017), the number of women was limited besides the fact that the respondents were less healthy. As opposed to solely relying on semi-structured telephone interviews and focused group, there is a need for employment of other data collection techniques in future studies. Lastly, further research is needed for larger sample sizes.

Reliability

Questions about reliability emerge when analysing Sewdas et al.’s (2017) article. Like for any other qualitative research, the sample size is relatively small, making it difficult to transfer the study’s findings to other populations and situations. Nonetheless, the reliability of the study is enhanced by the fact that the study is credible; the study measures what it was intended for (Cypress 2017). The process that was used in conducting the study is also dependable, adding to the reliability of the study.  Lastly, the reliability of the study is buttressed by the fact that its findings are confirmable by other studies. The findings of the study are supported by other studies, thus, it is reliable.

Credibility

The study by Sewdas et al. (2017) meets a number of credibility measures. Through the use of focus group and interview techniques, the researchers were able to enhance the study’s response rate (Fitzpatrick 2019). Though the sample size is relatively small, it served the paper’s purpose. Secondary data sources were also used to back up the study, enhancing the paper’s richness in terms of facts. Similarly, the paper effectively measured its assertions by itemizing the element of the study and delving deep into details of the study (Rose and Johnson 2020). Lastly, while the sample size was relatively small, the findings can be generalized for an organization or a country.

Validity

Sewdas et al. (2017) tried to ensure the study’s findings were valid in various ways.  Using the focus group, the researchers aimed at validating the findings by exploring explanations that were gathered using the interview technique. The researchers tested initial outcomes with the interviewed participants to help determine if what was gathered was correct.  Additionally, the researchers sought alternative explanations for the findings, comparing their findings with what previous studies found. By excluding other factors, the researchers improved the strength of the study’s findings. Nonetheless, the quality of data that was gathered during the telephone and focus group sessions depended upon the type of moderator or interviewer that was involved (Moon 2019). Similarly, concerns ensue with the findings’ validity with respect to the sample size that was used. With the small sample size that Sewdas et al.’s (2017) study employed, there are very little room for generalizing the study’s findings.