The fragmentation ofattention is clearly seen inthe case, starting from Johnson hospital, which conducted the initial analysis and surgical operations, and afterwards the treatment from Melford hospital, consultancy from Klein cancer center. Lastly, theUniversity of Wisconsin also played a role giventhe variety of consultants with different experiences and results whichcontributed towards the mismanaged treatment structure adopted by the lady and her family. Each one of the consultants made the process difficult for the woman except for few of the specialists that had made an accurate diagnosis and appropriate solution to the problem at the first instance though the lady’s family did not opt for it. Leda’s daughter had made the decisions more difficult for them, as her approaches for finding amore appropriate solution and method that is more reliable created more troubles for her motherand the doctors.
Second opinions and variability of suggestions:
Searching for second opinions and alternatives extensively and lack of coordination among the physicians and consultants’ team led to more pain and troubles for the patient. Furthermore, the lack of confidence of experts on approach to deal with the severity of disease made itcomplicated as the delay in the processisone of the leading causes.
The team involved throughout in the treatment of the lady has different expertise and backgrounds and different experiences to handle the cases of such nature. The main physicians that contributed their roles for Lushko’s treatment and referring to the other physicians are: Dr. Jones primary physician, who undertook his responsibility and showedthe patient to the appropriate physician. As the process continued, Dr. Smith, junior endocrine surgeon from Johnson suggested surgery for the patient which was the ultimate solution, but due to the lack of experience of the consultant, the daughter of the patient went for second opinion. Looking at the severity of the case, the approach was appropriate as the second opinion was sought, but the dragged process turned the case out of their favor and the decisions made after that wereabrupt and out of order.
Dr.Wood was one of the keysurgeons that could perform the operation with reasonable care and total energy for success. The doctor had consulted another doctor named as Dr. Gross who was sure that the surgery would increase the life expectancy but did not abandon the disease. He had performed a reasonable number of cases previously, having aconsistentexperience,however the lady’s family did not opt for him.
Eliza’s confusion had done a lot in creating difficulties for her mother and her treatment and dragged the treatment for the best, but the lost opportunities were the best for her mother’s treatment and survival. Lastly, Dr. Bailey with some other surgeons contributed to performing her surgery at Johnson. No second opinions mademore sense, and the surgery had made a difference.
Lack of information and its reliability:
The information found during the second opinions was incomplete and did not form and explained the picture for the patient and her family to go for appropriate decision making. The ideas contributed by several consultants and surgeons were incomplete in nature and lacked proper planning and guidance schedule for Mrs.Lushko that made them change the experts and sought second opinions. Reliability was also an issue because the consultant’s chain also had some of those consultants who were not appropriate for suggestions and decision making…………………
This is just a sample partical work. Please place the order on the website to get your own originally done case solution.