Question: Are mass screening programs effective? If yes, effective for what?

Response: Mass screening programs are effective as they encourage the members of the public to present themselves in healthcare facilities for medical practitioners to check the status of their health (Armstrong, 2012). They also enable practitioners to detect defects or symptoms of diseases that would have gone unnoticed by patients, and administer treatment options to individuals based on their specific conditions. A justification for the administration of screening to members of the public is that some medical issues show no symptoms, making it hard for people to know that they might have underlying conditions. Most mass screening programs are introduced to the public as offers, meaning that people only need to pay a reduced amount of fee for the entire process (Dans, Silvestre, & Dans, 2011). Mass screening is performed across all members of a population, irrespective of their demographic characteristics like age, gender, social status, level of education, amongst others, since every person is at risk of being sick. Screening all members of the public without discriminating them against their ages helps create awareness to the young people that medical conditions can affect both the old and youths, justifying the need for regular medical check-ups. According to Drobnik et al. (2011), a special type of mass screening commonly referred to as high-risk screening is designed for a subgroup or populations that are at a higher probability than others to develop a medical condition.

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

Order now

Question: What are the potential clinical (population-based) and financial implications of this?

Response: The clinical and financial implications of mass screening is that it promotes and creates awareness in the public, even though it is a cost to the healthcare facility. Performing a mass screening program is time-consuming since members of the public turn up in large numbers as they present themselves to the practitioners for check-ups. Since mass screening involves a different number of checkups to be performed on the public, time and resources are invested in the process, meaning that medical professionals avail themselves throughout the entire process to meet the needs of the population (Dans, Silvestre, & Dans, 2011). Another clinical implication of the mass screening program is that it would publicize the healthcare facility performing the activity, creating awareness on its existence in the market. This can be used as a marketing strategy by the healthcare facility as it introduces itself to the public and informs them of the services it offers.

Mass screening programs are opportunities where members of the public acquire information about their health (Armstrong, 2012). People attending the screening processes receive advice from the qualified medical personnel on how they should take care of themselves by adopting healthy lifestyle changes. Prevention of diseases is always a better strategy than the curing process which is financially and emotionally draining for the patients (Drobnik et al., 2011). The public is also encouraged to attend screening annually as they need to take control of their health status. Some of the diseases that most patients have could have been prevented if they had been diagnosed earlier by medical practitioners.

The financial implication of mass screening is unpredictable since healthcare facilities may either make profits or losses, depending on the number of people that turn up for the mass screening exercise. For instance, when a large number of people avail themselves for screening at the prevailing reduced prices, there is a high probability that a healthcare facility will break-even, meaning that it will get returns on the amounts it had invested to provide the public with the mass screening programs. One of the best strategies that healthcare facilities can embrace in mass screening processes to reduce the number of resources spent is by partnering with other organizations both in the medical industry and in other sectors to help create awareness (Armstrong, 2012). It is also important for the firm to allocate an amount of money per financial year towards public mass screening programs and plan for the events so that they do not cost the healthcare facility a large amount of money in the exercise.

Question: Would the client in Case Study 1 have qualified for a screening program? Explain your ideas in your own words.

Response: The client in Case Study 1 would have qualified for a screening program. This is because she is of high-risk. She is 56-years old, and her advanced age necessitates her to have regular medical screening for diseases. The patient had stated that she had gone through surgery to remove a tumor from her colon, a period of six months between when it happened and when she presented herself again in the hospital. Tests done on her had revealed that she had an abnormal CBC as well as a low white blood cell count, increasing the risk-factor on the need to have a mass screening performed on her body in the shortest time possible. The fact that colonoscopy and CT scan exams had revealed that she had some form of colon cancer that had affected other major organs in her body would necessitate the registered nurse working in the office to advise the Nurse Practitioner to attend to the patient immediately. Additional tests would be required to examine the status of her other internal organs, considering that the colonoscopy had revealed cancer had most probably spread to other areas. The patient had lost about 35lbs in the last two months, a symptom that might require the Nurse Practitioner to request for additional health information about the client's status. Screening the patient will help identify other underlying conditions that might have been missed in the previous examinations done on her other visits.

References

Armstrong, D. (2012). Screening: mapping medicine's temporal spaces. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(2), 177-193.

Dans, L. F., Silvestre, M. A. A., & Dans, A. L. (2011). Trade-off between benefit and harm is crucial in health screening recommendations. Part I: general principles. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64(3), 231-239.

Drobnik, A., Judd, C., Banach, D., Egger, J., Konty, K., & Rude, E. (2011). Public health implications of rapid hepatitis C screening with an oral swab for community-based organizations serving high-risk populations. American journal of public health, 101(11), 2151-2155.