MHM522 Module 3 SLP

1048 words 5 pages
Trident University
Erica L. Montgomery
Module 3 SLP Incident Reporting Requirements
MHM/522 Legal Aspects of Health Administration
Dr. Paulchris Okpala
May 18, 2015

Investigation of the incidents at the hospital level The incident reporting requires the application of either the voluntary or the mandatory systems. Both in Minnesota and in Utah, the reporting function lies in the hands of the professional boards. In both cases, there is a vast number of incidents that are reportable. The two cases use a medical examiner as one of the primary investigators. Additionally, there is the application of the cause analysis. In the end, the system of reporting of choice depends on their pros and cons. In Minnesota, the mandate
…show more content…

In these regulations, the data is subject to peer reviewing, statutory exemptions, and various immunities. The access to the information of the report is limited to the licensure boards and the states, which allow them to exercise their regulatory functions (Marchev et al., 2003).
Root use analysis and how it is utilized. The root cause analysis is the examination of the factors underlying the medical errors. Both in Minnesota and Utah, the root cause analysis is utilized. It is concerned with the assessment of several identical factors. One of the factors that are examined in the root cause analysis is the regulatory practice that may lead to the adverse events. The process also assesses the characteristics of the patients that may result in the errors. Moreover, the analysis considers the managerial factors that may cause the development of the errors. Finally, the root cause analysis considers the team characteristics as well as the workload that is experienced by the medical professionals (Marchev et al., 2003). The system of reporting depends on the incident’s situation. Both the voluntary and the mandatory systems of the reporting have individual pros and cons. One of the pros of the use of the mandatory system is that it does not offer any immunity to the person involved in the development of the adverse incidents. In this view, the professional who causes the