Analysis of the Ethical Issues in the Case Study

The first ethical dilemma is the failure to restrict Dr. Cutrite from serving as a general surgeon. The professional’s political power in the hospital and declining mental and physical competence put patients at high risk for harm. Errors are avoidable if the director requested Dr. Cutrite to avoid performing operations. Another ethical concern is lying to the client as to why she had to come back in for another unnecessary surgery, as a solution to look for the missing needle cover. A third issue is covering up the mistake to avoid warranted lawsuits due to avoidable medical errors. Fourthly, letting the patient remain with a possible needle cap in her abdominal cavity and not being sure whether this could cause a life-threatening event raises questions about a decision to put the patient’s life at risk due to a mistake of an incompetent surgeon. The fifth ethical dilemma entails determining whether the breakdown in safety practices fell within the inadequacies of Dr. Cutrite or that of other members of the surgical team.

Communication Strategies Used in the Case

Effective communication allows healthcare professionals to demonstrate professionalism and commitment to delivering patient-centered care. The director of clinical services showed excellent skills such as active listening and collaboration to address the ethical dilemma highlighted in the case. Straight engaged the operating room supervisor and the nurse while intently listening to their responses on events that transpired during the surgery. Objective conversations create a conducive atmosphere for members of the care team to explain the situation (Howick et al., 2018). The director’s efforts to engage different professionals to show awareness about shared governance, when making decisions on safety and quality of care.

A hypothetical question asked by the director also helped strengthen the communication process. The option allowed the director to consider the options available, including getting the patient back to the surgical room. However, the director was aware of the existence of a general surgeon who was physically and mentally weak. The failure to seek feedback from Cutrite raises concerns about the director’s commitment to finding a sustainable solution to the situation. In this case, the director failed to demonstrate commitment to breaking hierarchical barriers when addressing ethical dilemmas. Kim and Cruz (2022) encouraged healthcare leaders to embrace leadership traits and qualities that enable them to eliminate the status quo and power distances created by senior members. The case highlights the need for leaders to listen intently to the staff and demonstrate rational decision-making in challenging scenarios. The situation also reminds leaders to overcome hierarchical barriers that limit them from engaging senior employees responsible for negligence and errors.

Using the Ethical Decision-making Model to Analyze the Case Study

The error in the surgical room portrays one of the serious concerns for healthcare professionals responsible for handling complex procedures. Addressing such errors requires the care team to understand the principles of moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior (Martins et al., 2021). The director demonstrated moral awareness by acknowledging the error. The step reinforced decision to seek clarification on events that led to the team leaving an object in a patient’s belly. The director also exercised moral judgment by making significant steps toward investigating the issue and its implications for the patient. Recognizing the relevance of moral awareness and judgment allowed the director to stick to the right ethical behavior (Martins et al., 2021). Straight understood the issue and consequences, which allowed him to agree with the conclusions of the chief of surgery. Thus, it was appropriate to avoid getting the patient back to the operating room after considering all options and their implications on the client’s health and well-being.

Ethical Principles Applicable to the Case

Beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy principles allow healthcare professionals to demonstrate high levels of professionalism. Autonomy encourages the healthcare team to acknowledge a patient’s right to self-determination on a preferred treatment pathway. In the Missing Needle Protector, the facility violated the autonomy principle by failing to inform the patient about the object left in her belly and seeking an opinion on the preferred action. Beneficence is the other ethical principle that enables the care team to respond to a patient’s best interests (Varkey, 2021). The director made efforts toward understanding the causes of the error and its implications on the patient’s health and wel