The Impact of Hierarchy and Power to Australian Health Practitioners

Discuss About The Hierarchy Power Australian Healthcare System.

Hierarchy and power are critical influences to the health practitioners operations at the health centers and their service delivery to the community. On the long run, the healthcare system, medical privatization, health insurances and the society, in general, is affected. The understanding of these impacts of power and hierarchy to the practitioners is well explained through various theories and concepts of sociology. By definition, a hierarchy is chronological order of all the professionals involved in a healthcare management and operating a healthcare firm administrative department. On the other side, power is a tool in the management and administrative cycle that designates the various individual in the hierarchy to represent the entire nation in making sound decisions on the various aspects of health care. The dean of a hospital is ranked at the topmost management official in the hierarchy of the healthcare management. He is responsible for the operations management of the whole health care. In the hierarchy, the dean is followed by hospital administrators who are responsible for the various departments within the health system including events, finance, daily operations and events. Head of surgeons follows third and handles the various teams of doctors while performing administrative duties at the same time. The Head of Nursing department follows in the fourth category followed by the emergency department head, head of the equipment department, medicine department head, the head of the security department, the medical student’s administration and the inventory head respectively (Tomlin, 2013). This essay explains the impacts of hierarchy and power to the Australian health practitioners with reference to the various sociological theories and concepts.

The person on the highest level of the hierarchy has the highest power over all health issues. This power flow across the healthcare hierarchy to reach the patient. Any abuse of power has consequences to both the patient and the administering healthcare in general. As a patient, one needs the power to cope up with the prevailing medical situation. There is a need to feel an equal partner with the physician handling your health condition to offer a sustainable treatment solution. The medical professionals need a conducive environment and power control to exercise their duties diligently. As a health practitioner, the power must be well balanced across the hierarchy for you to deliver effective and efficient health services to the patients (Graves, 2014). The effectiveness of a healthcare system is subject to the social environment around the medical field. A functioning society is dependent on healthy people after the control of illness. The accomplishment of a healthy society is dependent on the health practitioners involved in the combination of the various disciplines including sciences, chemistry, engineering, and physics to fulfill their treatment role (Wilson et al, 2015).  

Sociological Theories on Hierarchy and Power in the Healthcare System

Reflecting on the conflict theory, power and force are instrumental tools in the healthcare system and health operations. Conflicts and tensions between the health practitioners are likely to escalate on occasions where the status, resources, and power is not equally distributed between various social groups and hence the arising conflicts become the social change engines(Murray, 2017). In the healthcare system power is assumed to be the control of the hospital resources, budgets, politics and the general health institutions as well as the individual’s status in relation to others. Some of the most common conflicts likely to occur in the healthcare system include; cultures, gender, race, religion, and sexuality (Cockerham, 2015). Some of the health practitioners at the highest point in the hierarchy are likely to abuse their authority and power to discriminate a certain group of people and deny them opportunities. On the other hand, the practicing nurses may discriminate some patients based on their race, sex or religion. This brings in hatred and state of no confidence with the practitioners such that a patient may choose to die with his illness rather than approach a certain healthcare center. In return, the society health status deteriorates and the economic status as well. On another perspective, some doctors may opt to open private medical centers and put high service charges such that the common Australian may not afford to maintain their health.

 Reflecting on the social learning theory, the Australian health practitioners are required to improve their skills and knowledge in their career through interaction with another health specialist. An assistant nurse can upgrade her nursing skills by learning from the senior nurse. Her effective socialization with the healthcare makes her an expert in the field. Thus taking the health system a step higher towards the achievement of development goals of the country. A good health profession is expected to share her knowledge and experience in the career with her subordinate staffs because only then can the society develop. The healthcare system in Australia has improved as a response to the world expectations for the developed countries. Like any other developed country, the Australian practitioners have maintained their health systems high to the countries standards (Blendon et al, 2012). They have maintained a high life expectancy in the twentieth century as compared to other countries. This difference is well demonstrated on the social economic patterns of the country. The Australian government has created easy access to health facilities and services to all people. For this reason, the rate of premature deaths and spread of chronic diseases is comparatively low.

The Functional Perspective on Healthcare Systems

With reference to the functionalist perspective, effective medical care and good health are the origins of a better functioning capability of the society. This means that the Australian society should have effective medical facilities for the Australian to contribute to activities that lead to development (Benson et al, 2013). The department of nursing should have good facilities in a conducive working condition for all the staffs. The perspective approach believes that poor health facilities deteriorate the nurse’s efficiency in performing their delegated tasks in the hospital who then extends this to the community. With health issues in the hospitals, the functionality of the society is at risk. Most of the premature deaths happening in the society are as a result of the poor management of the health occupants and nurses failing to deliver their duties. Hence the negative effects to the community during child care, birth and native socialization who ends up dying early. On the other side, poor medical services mark another problem to the society. The ill people undergo several problems and expenses to get healed again. Healthcare systems are parts made up of institutions individually designed to satisfy different needs and each of them has unique consequences to shape the society All the parts are interdependent with the society. For example, a nurse can open her private insurance to cover the patient’s treatment services.

With reference to the Social Exchange theory, the healthcare can be assumed to be a society where the health professionals interrelate and their interaction is assessed by punishments and rewards. The communications between the health practitioners are based on the amount of punishment or reward one receives from the superiors. The relationship between the various levels of management is formed under a subjective benefit and cost analysis (Brandt 2013). Most of the health or management interactions that prompts support has high chances of being repeated as compared to the interactions that elicit support. A nurse, for example, is expected to perform according to the recognition she receives from her superiors. Timely endorsements motivate the services of the practitioner. On the other hand, frequent punishments discourage the individual and are likely to quit the job to apply her skills elsewhere(de Graaf et al, 2013). To improve on this, the Australian government has encouraged privatization of the health centers which has ensured that almost every corner of the country has a health center and hence development.

The Social Exchange Theory on Healthcare

With reference to the critical theory, the health officials have outlined systems standards to be followed by the health practitioners during their practice. This goes beyond the social life, revealing all the assumptions that make up the society and how it works. The nurses are ordered to adhere to countries medical standard and this has led a long way in fostering the current transformation in their health standards (Willis, 2016). The health care system in Australia provides an open access to several services whose main source of funds is the government. Having been introduced on 1984, the Medicare offers subsidies and free treatment services in all public hospitals. For this reason, the Medicare is used to describe health care system in Australia through its precise access to medical care and hospitals (Duckett, 2015). It has strong health indicators as shown by her long life expectancy which is ranked as the third longest globally. Unlike other countries, Australian Health Care has well managed some of the major health concerns affecting the developed countries including mental illness, high levels of obesity and chronic diseases. The Australian budget spent on health care goes up to nine percent of the national GDP after OECD and United States (Böhm et al, 2012). As a country, Australia has expressed a wide gap between the Indigenous people’s health indicators and that of the non-indigenous Australians. The Australians are governed by a federal government system with six States, a commonwealth government, and two territories as well. The health department is kept under the State’s responsibility while the greatest revenue-raising powers are left to the Commonwealth Government. The healthcare system of Australia thus has a complicated share of roles and responsibilities in various levels of the government. It is partly funded by the private sectors although its main source of funding is the general taxation (Weiss, 2017). While the government provides about 67 percent of the whole expenditure, the pocket payments provide about 17 percent. The policy-making role is dominated by the Commonwealth.

A biomedical model can be used as an indicator of an efficient healthcare system through the rate of illness and health recorded.  The model is one of the major viewpoints in health as it involves the biological processes in a person (Deacon et al, 2015). In Australia, this model has taken the dormant role in the medicine and nurse fields. It is accepted by both doctors and none professionals. The doctors believe is that the body and the mind can be treated. The Biomedical model has three major theories on how it is predicted. In the first, disease comes as a breakdown in the body that acts to deter the normal state of the body. The second theory or the germ theory states that both the body and the mind can be individually treated. The third involves a professional physician to treat the illness (Bury et al, 2013). However, this model majorly concentrates on the biological factors of healing and illness only excluding the environment and psychological influences. It is the most used method with the modern care professionals in the diagnosis and treatment of conditions. Most of the physicians never ask for the social and psychological history of their patients, they just analyze their genetic and psychological history (Wardle, 2013). The model focuses on the good health as a liberty from disease, defects, and pain. It deals with all the physical processes affecting the human health including pathology, biochemistry, and physiological conditions. However, the model does not account for the psychological and social factors involved in the role of illness. It gives consistent results for different patients with the same condition. For this reason, the method can be used in the development of clinical research and development although it does not clearly outline the health impacts of power and hierarchy.

The Critical Theory on the Healthcare System

The health system is subjective to several of these social factors. By improving the social status of the nurses and the medical field in general, the society is guaranteed to develop. The power across the healthcare hierarchy should be equal to all. The wellness of the country and its people call for a society approach controlled power with an effective hierarchy in their healthcare system. The practitioners should work in an environment that guarantees the safety and conducive working conditions. The set health structures in the country should provide sustainable working conditions for all health workers while the government and the related funds provide the necessary resources. This inputs passion and zeal in the practitioners to serve the patients selflessly and research for any new health solution techniques in the market and apply them to the system. Patients gain the power to seek treatment and health advice from the health facilities and hence boosting the health status of the whole society and hence development. Health is dependent is a product of both social and biological processes. A functional society has health people after the control and prevention of illness.

References

Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. (2013). Understanding and motivating healthcare employees: integrating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, training, and technology. Journal of nursing management, 11(5), 315-320.

Blendon, R. J., Leitman, R., Morrison, I., & Donelan, K. (2012). Satisfaction with health systems in ten nations. Health Affairs, 9(2), 185-192.

Böhm, K., Schmid, A., Götze, R., Landwehr, C., & Rothgang, H. (2013). Five types of OECD healthcare systems: empirical results of a deductive classification. Health Policy, 113(3), 258-269.

Brandt, A. M., & Rozin, P. (Eds.). (2013). Morality and health. Routledge.

Bury, M. (2013). Health and illness in a changing society. Routledge.

Cockerham, W. C. (2015). Medical sociology. Routledge.

Deacon, B. J. (2013). The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research. Clinical psychology review, 33(7), 846-861.

De Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., van Gool, C., & van Dorsselaer, S. (2012). Prevalence of mental disorders and trends from 1996 to 2009. Results from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 47(2), 203-213.

Duckett, S., & Willcox, S. (2015). The Australian healthcare system (No. Ed. 5). Oxford University Press.

Graves, N., & Zheng, H. (2014). Modeling the direct health care costs of chronic wounds in Australia. Wound Practice & Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Association, 22(1), 20.

Tomlin, S., Joyce, S., & Patterson, C. (2013). Health and wellbeing of adults in Western Australia 2012, overview and trends. Western Australia: Department of Health.

Murray, C. J., & Frenk, J. (2017). Ranking 37th—measuring the performance of the US healthcare system. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(2), 98-99.

Wardle, J. L., Adams, J., Lui, C. W., & Steel, A. E. (2013). Current challenges and future directions for naturopathic medicine in Australia: a qualitative examination of perceptions and experiences from grassroots practice. BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 13(1), 15.

Weiss, G. L., & Lonnquist, L. E. (2017). The sociology of health, healing, and illness. Routledge.

Willis, E., Reynolds, L., & Keleher, H. (Eds.). (2016). Understanding the Australian health care system. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Wilson, R. M., Runciman, W. B., Gibberd, R. W., Harrison, B. T., Newby, L., & Hamilton, J. D. (2015). The quality in Australian health care study. Medical Journal of Australia, 163(9), 458-471.