Paper Example on Health Policy Scope of Practice of NP

Introduction

The Mental Health Association of Maryland (MAHMD) allows mandatory psychiatric admission for individuals found to have mental problems and those termed incapable of seeking medical help (Worcester, 2014). This law faces criticism, primarily due to its overweighing disadvantages and, most importantly, the adverse effects it imposes on the quality of care. Similarly, the standards associated with this law restrict the nurses' ability to high quality mental health services to its target customers (Pandearakalam, 2015). The aim of this paper is to identify a restriction issue in Nursing and expound on suitable recommendations to attain sustainability in the field of nursing while catering to the needs of people with mental health problems.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Analyzing the Issue of Restriction and its Effect on the Future of Nursing

According to Saya et al (2019), the existence of the mandatory psychiatric admission law insignificantly contributes to solving mental health issues. Psychiatric nurse practitioners, with the help of a physician, have the authority to sign a compulsory psychiatric admission form if they term the individual unfit.The set standards, however, limit this authority and do not give the practitioners enough power to offer treatment to all individuals in need of it. This law, to some extent, lags future research on alternative mental healthcare methods for such patients (Pandearakalam, 2015). Similarly, the disadvantages associated with this restriction limit the ability of healthcare providers to offer quality care.

Description of the Issue

The current standards for involuntary psychiatric admission have remarkable challenges. These challenges, in turn, affect the general population's health (Saya et al, 2019). The inability of psychiatric medical practitioners to treat all individuals with mental health problems causes these effects. The current legislation standards allow practitioners to offer mandatory admission only under a limited number of circumstances. These circumstances exist if the individual has an existing mental health problem and if they seem to endanger themselves or others. Also, it allows mandatory admission if the individual needs inpatient medical care, or there is a lack of other less restrictive ways for administering treatment (Saya et al, 2019). However, these standards do not adequately cater to the needs of mental health clients. The standards leave out a more significant portion of the population, including the elderly and those presenting early and mild symptoms of mental disorders. These standards restrict nurses and mental health practitioners while the mental health problems of the individuals left out by standards continue to progress (Pandearakalam, 2015). In the long run, a majority of the mental health problem cases increase even though they would have been prevented or managed at an early stage.

Recommended Strategies for the Restriction Issues

According to Worcester (2014), the National Alliance on Mental Illness opposes and questions the current standards for involuntary psychiatric admission due to the shortcomings. The agency proposed a bill to modify the criteria discussed above, hence making it easier for medical practitioners to offer psychiatric healthcare involuntarily. The idea behind the law intended to manage the faults of the current standards (Worcester, 2014). The proposed legislation had three leading suggestions. The first recommendation involved revising the current involuntary admission standards (Worcester, 2014). The purpose of this recommendation was to ensure that a broader population can access the best quality of care.

Secondly, NAMI recommended that psychiatric medical practitioners receive more liberty to offer medications to involuntary patients (Worcester, 2014). Lastly, the bill proposed the revision of the involuntary commitment standards to accommodate outpatient mental health cases. The Treatment Advocacy Center (2018) developed various policy recommendations that MAHMD needs to consider to attain sustainability. Among these recommendations was the use of laws regarding civil commitment to ensure that all individuals with mental problems get medical attention on time (Pandearakalam, 2015). This recommendation will help in the prevention of unwanted consequences for both the individuals and the community at large.

Update on National Success

Despite the various efforts put by NAMI, there is no substantial change in the standards for the involuntary admission of individuals (Pandearakalam, 2015). However, medical practitioners and other bodies are increasingly gaining awareness of the existing gap created by these standards. This knowledge has, in turn, increased the number of researches. To find alternative methods of luring patients into voluntary admission, scientists are conducting more research (Saya et al, 2019). The disadvantages associated with involuntary admission have mainly contributed to this substantial lacking. Most researchers have hence opted to focus on the alternative means.

Conclusion

The current standards regarding the involuntary admission of psychiatric patients undoubtedly create an ethical issue, especially in terms of the quality of care. This issue comes about since mental health medical practitionersneed to give maximum quality care to all patients. Nurses should also adhere to the laws and regulations guiding their practice. This restriction significantly alters my nursing leadership perspectives. Consequently, I have a new outlook, especially in terms of factors regarding the quality of care. As a result, I have a detailed understanding of the impact that the involuntary psychiatric admission standards have on my ability to offer patients the best care possible. Similarly, it is evident that the gap created by the current standards in terms of mental health care and the positive results that would come from the implementation of new standards or revision of the current ones needs appropriate change to attain effectiveness. Therefore, it is essential for contemporary healthcare instructors to put into consideration various factors that could help in addressing the plight of mental health clients, as discussed in this paper.

References

Pandearakalam, J. P. (2015). Formal psychiatric treatment: Advantages and disadvantages. British Journal of Medical Practitioners, 8(4), 1-5. https://www.bjmp.org/files/2015-8-4/bjmp-2015-8-4-a837.pdf.

Saya, A., Brugnoli, C., Piazzi, G., Liberato, D., Di Ciaccia, G., Niolu, C., & Siracusano, A. (2019). Criteria, procedures, and future prospects of involuntary treatment in psychiatry around the world: A narrative review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 10(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00271.

Treatment Advocacy Center. (2018). Maryland: Eliminating barriers to the treatment of mental illness. Treatment Advocacy Center.https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/maryland.

Worcester, J. (2014). 2014 Sine Die Report: Maryland General Assembly. Nurse Practitioner Association of Maryland.https://www.npamonline.org/page/77.