1. MICHAEL Utilizing Bias to Make Better Decisions Though the healthcare profe

1. MICHAEL
Utilizing Bias to Make Better Decisions
Though the healthcare professions have come a long way in the last couple of decades institutional and status quo bias remain. Many universities that graduate healthcare professionals are still limited in the number of minority instructors they employ (Varnado, Richardson, & Kessler, 2022). The long-standing status quo within the healthcare professions has limited the enrollment and instruction of healthcare professional students of color. Limiting different voices within the varied healthcare professions has been a long-lasting bias within the United States educational system. Still, it also has deterred the learning environment to expose future healthcare providers with greater exposure to differing opinions and value systems.
As future healthcare administrators we need to encourage a diverse healthcare environment to both provide differing opinions to solve healthcare system problems like the shortage of qualified nurses and physicians as well as other variable issues. Status quo biases at its heart are about limiting the amount of change an institution or even an industry accepts (Lee, 2019). As humans, we normally accept what has occurred before and do not normally challenge the current situation. In the healthcare industry, we can serve diverse communities of different races and ethnicities. Ensuring these groups have a voice in healthcare decision-making in a new healthcare facility being built within their community as well as acknowledging community-specific needs is integral to ensuring healthcare organizations are seen as responsive to the needs of each patient population. In the future universities and healthcare institutions need to ensure they maintain equal hiring and acceptance policies to weigh both the merits and diversity of their staff and student populations.
Anchoring Bias
Anchoring bias is another issue within healthcare in which decision-makers are influenced by irrelevant information (Lee, 298). A frequent bias within the medical community that is costly to both the patient’s family and the healthcare institution is extending life without any hope of future quality. The healthcare field often pushes to have patients on life-supporting interventions that can prolong the life of a patient. However long hospitalization also incurs greater costs to the patient and their family. Patients who have no quality of life present an issue in which care can be given which makes the healthcare team feel needed (Meira, Esther-Lee, & Dekeyser-Ganz, 2022). But, often preserving hope of greater recovery for a patient’s family when they will eventually need to make a hard choice during end-of-life discussions is causing additional injury to them. Also, patients with no chance of recovery consume resources that can be better given to patients who have a greater chance of survival. As healthcare professionals even when we can continue life, it comes to a point to if continuation is in the patient and family’s best interests which can be contradictory to what healthcare professionals want to believe.
Biblical Integration
Whether the decision relates to a diversified staffing situation or end-of-life bias can affect how healthcare professional can be influenced in their decision-making. One way we can avoid these situations is by having others examine our way of thinking to list relevant information within a decision. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the others come to examine him” (Proverbs 18:17). This passage points out that when we fall into either status quo biases or anchoring bias we need to take steps to evaluate the information we have on hand. Once we have other professionals evaluate our findings and challenge us on them there is a greater chance of finding logical issues within a conclusion. Accepting a student into a major medical program or extending care are both costly decisions that need to be considered and challenged to ensure the best outcome for both the healthcare institution and the overall community in our service area.
References
English Standard Version (2023). Openbible.info, Proverbs 18:17.
Lee H.L. (2019). Economics for Healthcare Managers 4th Ed. Health Administration Press,
298, 301.
Meira, E., Esther-Lee. M., & Dekeyser-Ganz, F. (2022). Practitioner bias as an explanation for
low rates of palliative care among patients with advanced dementia. Health Care
Analysis: HCA, 30(1), 60-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00429-xLinks to an external site.
Varnado, K., Richardson, S., & Kessler, A. (2022). Rejecting the status quo: a call to action
using culturally responsive pedagogy in health professions programs. Journal of Allied
Health, 51(4), 277-278.
.
2. ASHTON
Behavioral Economics
Behavioral economics differs from standard economics in that assumptions of complete rationality, willpower, and selfishness are dropped (Lee, 2019). This form of economics evaluates individual choices where shortcuts and rules of thumbs are used to make decisions. By evaluating behavioral economics findings, in healthcare it allows for potential changes in patient and provider behavior (Wang & Groene, 2020). The ability to emphasize these changes can lead to potential growth for the organization. Some changes that can be made include changing the environment and reducing sunk cost bias.
Changing the environment includes changing the choice mechanism and evaluation mechanism (Liberty University, 2023). One method to alter the choice mechanism is to evaluate individuals’ risk preferences. There is a connection between risk preference and risky behavior; therefore, if someone has a higher risk preference, then they would be more likely to participate in risky behavior (Lee, 2019). Therefore, by understanding why these risks are taken, then avenues can be integrated to prevent these shortcuts from occurring. This alteration would then allow for an improvement in the evaluation mechanism. One way to determine if the evaluation mechanism has improved properly, is to seek out feedback from those whom the leadership team knows will be honest, even if there is a disagreement (Lee, 2019). This can ensure that the evaluation is being thoroughly evaluated and allowing for adjustments to be made, which will ultimately provide the leadership team with the best data.
Another area that helps improve decision making is the use of sunk cost bias, which is used to evaluate the company’s standard operations rigorously and make closure the default result (Liberty University, 2023). This is necessary to ensure that overconfidence by those that make decisions for the company does not occur. Having too much confidence can lead to poor decisions being made (Lee, 2019). By reviewing the operations of a company, the organization can make adjustments when failures occur to allow themselves the opportunity to learn from the mistake. Within this evaluation, the leadership team should appoint someone to review the data and determine if there is any outside evidence that goes against the findings (Lee, 2019). By learning from these mistakes, making adjustments, and reviewing outside evidence, it allows the company to have closure and ensure that proper procedures are in place.
Biblical Integration
Proverbs 16:18 states, “ Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (New International Version Bible, 2011). This verse shows Christians that being too prideful leads to failure and is not of God. This also shows that healthcare leaders must be aware of their own bias and allow themselves to make changes to their environment and how they evaluate the new criteria (Lee, 2019). This ability to recognize their own bias, will allow the organization to be more successful overall and limit the possibility of destruction seen in Proverbs.
Conclusion
Behavioral economics is an area of study that should be implemented in the healthcare workplace. This is needed as there are deficiencies between the medical care that is possible and what level of care is actually provided (Hallek et al., 2022). It is important that the environment and the cost bias are formally evaluated to ensure that protocols are implemented to aid in company success (Liberty University, 2023). Otherwise, if this form of economics is not reviewed, it can lead the healthcare leadership team to be overconfident and make poor decisions (Lee, 2019). Therefore, there should be a team of individuals that are reviewing this information to ensure that personal bias and decisions being made do not lead the company astray. When these factors are being considered, it will allow a healthcare organization to make improved decisions for the organization overall, staff, and patients.
References
Hallek, M., Ockenfels, A., & Wiesen, D. (2022). Behavioral economics interventions to improve medical decision-making. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 119(38), 633-639. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0275Links to an external site.
Lee, R. H. (2019). Economics for healthcare managers (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Assoc. of Univ. Programs in Health Administration. ISBN: 9781640550483.
Liberty University. (2023). Watch: BUSI 629 – Week 8. https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/509577/pages/watch-busi-629-week-8?module_item_id=58780629
New International Version Bible. (2011). Zondervan. (Original print in 1978).
Wang, S. Y., & Groene, O. (2020). The effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed interventions on physician behavioral change: A systematic literature review. PloS One, 15(6), e0234149-e0234149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234149Links to an external site.
INSTRUCTION
.Each thread must demonstrate course-related knowledge. Include at least 2 peer reviewed citations and course text book (3 sources) and biblical integration
Course textbook: Lee, R. H. (2023). Economics for healthcare managers. Health Administration Press.