EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper
EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper
Write a 1,000-1,250 word paper in which you analyze a scenario using the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
You are the administrator on call for Hospital A and are responsible for accepting and rejecting patients. You receive a call at 2:00 a.m. from Health Hospital B regarding a patient with a severed ear.
The ED physician is calling to arrange an EMTALA-qualified transfer from his hospital to yours, but the ENT physician on call at your hospital is refusing to accept the transfer, stating that the patient does not need a higher level of care.
You call your ENT on call, and he admits he has just had three glasses of wine and will not be available for about 6 hours. You electronically send him the record that Health Hospital B would send with the patient. The ENT physician advises that the ear looks salvageable and could easily be sutured in any ED. The ED physician at Health Hospital B is very nervous about the possibility of an EMTALA violation. EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
- If you decide to reject the patient, is this a violation of EMTALA? Explain.
- What decision will you make as the administrator? Explain.
- Based on this scenario, what could be implemented to prevent this type of situation from occurring in the future?
- Under what scenario would the Hospital A physician be concerned about an EMTALA situation?
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | |||||
| HLT-520 | HLT-520-O500 | EMTALA Scenario Analysis | 80.0 | |||||
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% | |||||||
| EMTALA Violations | 20.0% | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is not included. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is included, but lacks supporting detail. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is complete and includes supporting detail. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail | ||
| Administrator Decision | 20.0% | A description of the administrators decision is not included. | A description of the administrators decision is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of the administrators decision is included, but lacks supporting detail. | A description of the administrators decision is complete and includes supporting detail. | A description of the administrators decision is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail. | ||
| Prevention Strategies | 15.0% | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is not included. EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is incomplete or incorrect. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is included, but lacks supporting detail. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is complete and includes supporting detail. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail. | ||
| EMTALA Concerns | 15.0% | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is not included | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is included, but lacks supporting detail. | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is complete and includes supporting detail. | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail. | ||
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% | |||||||
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. | ||
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper | Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. | ||
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | ||
| Format | 10.0% | |||||||
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | ||
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | ||
| Total Weightage | 100% |
EMTALA Scenario Analysis Paper
