Description of Practice Environment

The current basis of care tells about then very much of a certain standard from when care was necessity and certain realities given. In most circles of academic and professional nature, it is held up as the very far-off standard to which providers attained in some part though in singular fashion. That is partly what has led to care being given that is fragmented as though lacking somewhat in purpose, mission, and focus. Besides all that, being so very much unpleasant, certainly there remains on the whole much of the training lest these should somehow grow empty and falter in the fulfillment of shared duties then once again. The givers of care too should not be allowed to fail thus in their duties nor be left there as though somehow devoid of all function. All these are but sacred reminders of what had once started off as a far greater order. Along with it too comes the knowledge of running of systems that keeps the whole thing operating smoothly just as intended hardly without any obvious defaults or naysayers then of the system. With all these things, comes a being connected to one that's far greater even that of the social construct as a few of the leaders ever so readily are fond in the saying. Then at the last, there remains something of a function not just discovered but with merit provided in which task-based functionality now is occurring. In the perfect world just maybe there are none of the petty squabbles occurring that differentiate caregiving as some big imperfect part of a system. With the form and the function thereof being firmly established of sorts comes only the directionless systems of having what has been come so far on the journey. Care exists in a way to be sure but only when it comes to the body where it is a well-certain must duty. Though with all persons and providers having presented assembled just ready and waiting, it is a much more intentional journey of sorts with results bound then to happen. Perhaps though, if the personal situations were not nearly so helpless and broken, these too would be seen helping themselves working. Though what is the good in it when the system is far from perfect and the people are missing as the providers instead who would otherwise be serving. All that is describing care being rendered in the hopsital setting though with an administrative eye for the details reflecting a top-down approach much rather. Surely, everything would function just as intended if not for the multitude of call-outs, procedural errors, interpersonal conflicts, and whole system redeign changes as though engaged in a search for something that is actually working.

Introduction of Issue

Far better to receive care then in the natural systems from the hospital to clinic to community proper. Though arguably care should be something more provided than just the endless cycle of dying and living again trapped in the same perpetual motion. Then again, care should not be anything unusual except for the same basic provision of living afforded to each in relative safety with some comfort then given. Though what good is care except in times of a crisis. During times such as those persons are always seeking whatever these can get or obtain of a sort as though just handed out in the bargain. Though without the caregiving perspective, these persons would very much like the care that they chose were it not for these woes. In the system as it is currently working, there is hardly room for personal perception much less improvement. The personal care approach helped slightly with incorporating a basic perspective in matters of their everyday care. However, providers still know best it seems when it comes to diagnosis, treatment options, and the much larger parts of the system. Given that the care system is entirely made up of the people, it follows naturalLy speaking these should have some sort of say in planning the things of the future. With it in the current condition, it follows that the care is missing and broken having with it disposed of the lives, the hopes, and the dreams instead reducing them into some sort of numerical system. These are called budgets and debt and insurance funding then of course all mixed in with quality-of-life measures then from the start. It seems then that the system has become one of permanent crisis brought about by its very own sort of mismanagement. Though what could follow it seems is a system worn down from its own imperpetual motion. Certainly, the persons are all individually valued for what each brings to the system. Though in collective these see it as inherently broken for lack of consideration when it comes to bias and hatred with a disrespect for the provision very much allowing this particular sort of a system. At this junction, there is a need to investigate care once again. As a result the prevailing research question becomes whether sustainability in personal care can be achieved through a focused communication change to the healthcare system compared with a traditional focus on wellness and goals.

Purpose and Objectives

Apparently, this is all medical providers as providers or stewards are good at is the things of the body, leading some to believe in a system inherently broken it seems. This singular perspective goes back to the whole matter at hand of how is care defined to the person. Keeping in mind, the perspective matters at this point in time for there are those who believe in doing everything needful all in the name of reconnecting the system even it if means cutting out or even culling the root cause of the issue. Reforming the caregiving system involves reconnecting or training the whole process of learning which is a lot harder to do when it is spread around through the people. Nor is it just one or two people but rather a whole system engaged in a function that has been broken, thereby leaving whole communities open to say nothing of the time and attention spared to the lives of the those to whom care is provided. Surely it is not the old local barbershop model with care providers wondering if observation is the best natural function. This model sort of describes the ancient conundrum of presenting for care. Consider this for just a moment more really. A person presents to the clinic with disheveled appearance and obvious swelling of the fingers and toes. A quick check on these areas would not be amiss. In fact, many more solutions are realized just from looking in on these and also a quick inquiry as to the state of the health. This then is the prevention aim in the system. Consider the impact relatively speaking upon a person's return to the clinic as a central focus of care especially with trainings of recognition and dection for health in the making. It is estimated that provider time would be freed up significantly in between regular visits. This describes the two-fold aim in meeting financial incentives along with screening for local community issues. Perhaps though these purposes can be attained without letting the subjects know that a review is in progress. The final aim of perceptions asks the question what is important to nursing with resource allocation going by financial needs and payment incentives with some of these actually funding other aspects of care. This singular focus compares that perspective with the needs of the clinic between what is actually needed then to render care safely. The final aim considers the outcomes of care with the goal of it being safety related in focus. These aims should be viewed as interconnected with the production of safety and outcomes then as expected as the costs of the caring work together in influencing current perspectives.

Literature Review

Sustainability in care suggests far more than an external focus in general or as some would put it an endless cycle of visiting the doctor all in return for the care provided now and again. Quite possibly as the health falters and wanes, these same ones would return again and again once seeking care from the system. According to research though, this is not the more probable cause of the issue. Instead, the system of care must not be allowed to be dysfunctional really so as the persons' own bodies borne underneath such care that is rendered. Therefore, the threefold aim of care as sustainable must be addressed. There are financial aspects where the system is as stable as should be expected rather than continually on the edge or brink of disaster. Social issues also come into play due to ethical concerns arising from a focus like this later on rather. Then with the system itself being built on the backs of the people, the situation is not hardly as fair as supposed. Other impacts of care as a process considers the environment as a contributing factor or man's footprint upon data. Basically, all that is a fancy way of saying that the system of care is not as much as supposed. The paper trail too tells the tale of the woes much as some criticisms do as so many stories passed down through the years. This singular focus makes building a sustainable system that much more needful.

To sum it up neatly, a sustainable system of personal care should first of all have capacity, followed by organizational structures put in place with financial backing and responsibility then later all in the name of meeting the needs of the care for the people. Though in order to have this, there must be some sort of change in the system. Personal care along with its focus brought much needed relief to parts of the whole. Additional research ascribes this movement to all of the following changes. There has been some mention that the system is not currently working leading to a disconnect between healthcare outcomes and implementation of personal care just as expected. Despite this, research suggests that observable health status observed and self-reported measures had somewhat improved. This held especially true regardless of whatever population or disease type thus had been mentioned. Breakdowns began to occur though when it came to the units which is where care usually then happens on a much smaller level. Regardless though, findings were somewhat limited to region and also confined to placement of setting. On an individual level, specific results have started to happen particularly when the personal care focus was known for being involved.

In other words, adaptability is characterized as accepting new ways of thinking or the being in order to change with the times. Without adaptability comes a system that is more than probably broken having been continually working. Not only is that not the end of the matter, but care has been conceptualized by continually learning through all the probable causes of strife on the issue. Despite rumors of new funding models being developed and mergers of various learnings, there remains somewhat of an inadequate system of being, one that is very much characterized by inadequate resources and a lack of collaboration between various providers in general. The end result of this issue is a siloed care delivery model that has become misaligned with the complexity of the healthcare system and personal needs in particular. In order to fully affect a focus of care on from there, directives are conceptualized on three different fronts rather with that of the individual, organizational, and community levels coming into being rather.

Capacity

In this case, it is defined as the capacity or the ability of the system in the giving and receiving of care. This definition encompasses the mental, emotional, and psychosocial roles of a sort in addition to a number of provider-based uses. Despite all this, care is as always what is defined by the person according to their own concept relatively being. Should the care all sound just a bit relative, that is because the system as defined by the person is actually working. Perhaps the likes and dislikes of the person should be also considered along with their cultural purpose, values, social construct and function. Thus, the introduction of the true value standard in care comes with provider roles and responsibilities mixed in the bargain. When speaking of the caregiving profession, it can be better regarded as a whole when influencing the high-quality care that is supposed to be worn. Measurement of this function can be done in short by the needs of the person just floating around in the system. Whether anything different must be done once again or at this point just an all-course correction as far as care is considered from being one with the person-centered focus only from there.

Organizational Structures

Other responsibilities include a system that is currently keeping place with the times. This is usually looked at from a quality perspective as to whether the organization is doing as well as it should in the system. Between separate measures of health and collective ones later, the guiding theory based off the bias is that there is very much work to be done around with the system. Certainly, room is needed at present for organizational improvements as seen from personal surveys, staff reports, and other whole measures of quality. In this case, a study was conducted with results as follows from a collection of managers sampled. These were responsible for identifiying primary cases in needs or those in which focused training would be a little more useful. Results clearly exist from the study that follows that these felt overwhelmed and somewhat ill-equipped to handle the system. The sampling of data is organized by clusters with thematic and content relationships between values emphasized. In sum, there are four main areas for quality improvement that have been identified by this study in particular. These include a team-based approach, educational learnings, provider access, and certain quality measures of care. Of these four areas, only two are addressed in full, meaning that managers as it follows do not have answers for the needs currently overwhelming the system. Suggestions currently in progress include looking for whole system perspectives without increased effort from care providers needed then just thrown in the bargain. The second perspective must adequately address these whole-hearted barriers to learning and function with care also being affected. From an educational perspective, new ways of learning must be found to deal with the system. These include the ability of talking along with maintaining interpersonal relationships on all levels of care that actually follows. Reasons for doing so are for personal best interest at heart with improvement in outcomes and other satisfaction measurement levels. Certainly, with this sort of approach, there are concerns that have been raised of addressing the system.

Financial Structure

Financial responsibility highlights the need for transformation in care towards a focus of one that is actually working. It should be noted as an intersection between the focus in nursing, economic incentives, and a person-centered sort of all purpose learning with these being worked out in the care that naturally follows if only from there. Whether liked or not, certain financial realities trouble the system or all things most proper that make up the whole. These are based on their value rather than a system of complicated measures all interconnected together. As a result, certain realities underline the current system of cost-benefit measures as something that is produced as a result of the care. From this viewpoint looking in once again, it highlights a world where budgeting shares its place as a feature. It is best defined as something between what the costs are and expenses then later almost as a man did with building his tower but could not find his starting for then. Surely the caregiving system would at least like to have some satisfaction then of completing rather than in preserving its image as a whole system broken down and in need of some care which is what funding does rather. At this point, something else is almost needed to come alongside of a sort. Consider indeed a world where one cannot exist apart from the other and that not without the legions of men. In other words, with one taken down the other then suffers. This finding is not an all surprising when insurance funding has been the one that is clouding the view. Foremost then, are the needs of care that is in place to finance itself independent of function or connection of systems. Without having this separate piece in the mix, the whole system becomes merely an extension of sorts, one that very much reflects wherever the funding dictates and goes.

Needs

In this case the person-centered perspective is being defined as the needs. Contributing factors sees the nursing function as expanding to other roles besides that of just providers for physical care. Other words used describe these possible functions as translators, advocates, companions, and occasionally central to families. In fact, nursing interventions were deemed more significant than care that is rendered the body thereby reducing time and attention. Several possible levels have been introduced for each of the perspectives ordered thus far. At an institutional level, the provision of care is viewed as limited and overworked, leaving persons with no interaction of sorts. From this point of view, the objectified provider sets in along with poor management styles and interpersonal conflicts thrown around in the bargain. Small wonder then that the persons themselves report a distrust in the system without knowledge of the caregiving environment or procedure that follows. These identifiers of a system as this hold true universally no matter what area is studied then really. On a systemic level, there are all sorts of issues as short staff leave providers feeling overwhelmed, busy, and stressed as it is. These also report lack of time, burnout, and a task-based focus with lack of support and a disconnect in the system.

In this case, quality is most often achieved through addressing established personal needs and also their values. Issues pertaining to communication rather appear in a singular number of forms. These include language differences and lack of speech as though somehow hindering care that is provided. In addition, lack of interpretation and nonverbal signals combined with misunderstanding and medical use of actual words make communication even more difficult between persons and providers. Additionally, there are other special circumstances that must be considered including trauma, difficulty, translation, teaching, age, cultural background, and a number of other personal factors. Environmental concerns include noise, invasion of privacy, lights, and expressions such as hot or cold along with feelings of lostness that often accompany a prevention of expression. Even in making needs known, the system is not tailored to fit individuals with personal factors. Behind all the issues of nature underlies a most common principle of welcoming people the way they want to be greeted. Besides that, are personal factors such as those of a somewhat religious nature at first. Feelings, cultural absence, racial makeup and attitudes all influence the caregiving setting somewhat in this sort of a fashion. Between these, the perceptions, misunderstanding, disrespect, inability, and ignorance have not been known to help matters any. At first glance, these institutional, systemic, communicative, environmental, and personal issues are not known to be working together. However, these exist very much in the influence of systems rather with the interrelatedness of persons connecting them all.

Care

In this case, care starts off by asking the person what is valued then of a sort whether form or in function. Care is always as defined by personal understanding of the memory of what has been asked to be rendered. Lack of this means that the person who has entered this system by extension will also suffer as well whether from unmet expectations, want, or actual needs as presumed. This leads quite naturally speaking to what many feel is system that has been missing its reason. When taking a look at the care that is given, it starts out with a bottoms-up approach from the top. That is to say, a top down in the manner of systems with what some have now regarded as the voice then of reason. Usually what has become is care from an organizational viewpoint on leadership values herded by certain management principles. In fact, these measures are then supplemented through the training and recruitment of staff. However, this represents one of the cardinal sins on the whole. While this is all well, good, and wonderful in policy central, the reality falls far short of attaining the mission of what the persons have wanted to receive care as now and again. In fact, it is the case more times than not really with it being vitally important that these functions be provided for regulatorily speaking. As seen once before, persons want, from a matter of perspective, to maintain their trust in the system more than the care providers even in terms of needs and priorities. After all, the health is at stake, though with expectations hardly being met in the bargain, more and more are starting to form different opinions. In this case, the system has the need for information to be underlined in the process. This provides for the understandings of health as more than a general matter of perspective. Additionally, what is valued is the importance for relationships to be had with the providers of care rather than just an impersonal system. Then too there is the assignment of value to the person beyond just attainment of later as in difference of medical opinion. When it comes to the quality of life versus the care that is rendered, all this takes importance in building and maintaining the system. Other perspectives at hand on the matter include prioritization of various types of support beyond just physical welfare delving well into emotional, mental, and psychosocial matters at hand.

Facilitators and Barriers

Introduction of this particular facet invites the critique of whether care is currently provided as well also it should. In this case, systemic sustainability from a person-centered perspective that is working raises the issue about whether or not the system is doing as well as it should. Then again, it raises questions about whether noteable gaps in the care are occurring there once again. In short, the question requires whether the system can keep place with the times or if anything basic would require doing again, quite even possibly enlisting the help of a whole separate system. Systemic measures once introduced are not a bad thing in and of themselves then at first. Regardless, their integration with the system that is noticeably broken is considered a must. All these considerations help particularly when examining the faciliators and barriers of a system-like proper. In this case, care is the thing being rendered. Therefore, a closer look at what some of these care giving places are actually doing presently is somewhat required before change then can happen.

Faciliators and barriers that are currently facing the issue include promoting a structural redesign to the system otherwise producing characteristics among researchers otherwise resembling the shell-shocked who have been wounded in battle. Therefore, the system redesign is one possible process of fixing the issues that have been presented at first. Possible downsides of this type of approach include learning times and functionality of the new system of sorts. The second approach to the issue focuses on a spot-based performance improvement. However, this cannot be done without seriuosly overwhelming the system due to retraining all of its employees on new measures of care. From this perspective, the better result is produced from a careful redesign of the system without having to correct individual levels. From there, care provider empowerment can be as simple as information sharing or ease of access from there. Certainly, a redesign of the system would be mucher cheaper and easier than other methods including those involving potential retraining. Potential retraining of staff includes mental, emotional, and psychosocial issues as well as a host of other interpersonal contributing factors.

Conceptual Framework

In this day and age, building trust, relationships, and care are what actually matter. Not only that but these are essential to solving the half-hearted cause of the issue. In this case, obvious systemic needs have been presented as happening. So much is obvious from the care the persons receive being defined as just not meeting their needs to the health care workers themselves feeling broken down and worn out almost betrayed by the system. Things can be better understood when encapsulated quite simply. The theoretical construct model of communication is used to define an approach using a "personal care and communication continuum." In this case, the theoretical model is in the shape of a spectrum. On one end to the left of the system sits the task centered care forces. These include things like skill based sets and other procedural values. Performing daily care is a type of the task centered issue. From a research perspective, most care is provided on a task centered level from a personal focus stretching out to include the whole organization. From there, the organizations are seen reaching around influencing the rest until all the whole system's perspective gets seen as one once again. Then in the middle, there's the process centered care being provided. Triaging a person for the care that is received is an example of these. Basically, it is performing the tasks of the care while also providing just a little bit more. On a whole, the systemic perspective sees the process centered focus as outstanding at best. However, with persons reporting their needs are still not being met at this level, there is a third final approach to the right of these which is where care ideally should follow. The person centered approach combines the tasks to be done from a care perspective all the while meeting the needs of the people. This can be psychosocial, mental, physical, and also emotional needs as introduced by the person.

With that being said, there is one final question of is there a way of embracing all three. As it turns out there in fact is. Barbers do it all the time so do hair stylist and anyone else in the service profession. In fact, it is the norm for more than some distant reality central. When in fact it goes back to the age-old conundrum of doing what is lovedversus loving what is done once again. On the one hand is doing what is loved very much really and on the other the equal but opposite effect in the matter. A server in a restaurant for example does what they love no doubt and they are very good at it. Half the time when asked what mattered the most to them it was the people. Givers of care on the other hand tend usually to love what they do as in the process communication gets all sorts of twisted. The complaints at the other end of the spectrum are enough to convince anyone of its not really working. With that being said remains the task of educating people in the care of the system rather than just spending a whole bunch of time and money in relearning it rather. It also appears thatease of use and expression would help the person understand better. This concept of communication use in the talking also changes how follow-up is being conducted.

Summing Up Neatly

On the whole, nursing interventions are where the difference is person-centered being made up of the sum not what the persons can do for the provider in the buying of clothes, paying the bills, and also quite possibly in bringing of food rather. Instead, it is a perspective of what can be done for the persons involved in the system, as the intersection of bringing value back in by the things that are done once again. For instance, the economic impact of putting a barbershop back in the clinic is a conversation starter for sure. Besides bringing some value back into the clinic, pretty much everyone knows the hair dresser as man's sort of best friend. Though when the business of care is considered, it is almost easier to take one or two other service perspectives that have this in view already without having to teach or relearn the softer people skills that are found on the job. The only other conceivable way of addressing this issue is to train these up rather with some degree of medical assisting granted in function which greatly reduces the incidence of task-base in learrning. Provided these measures are firmly considered, one or two results are projected to start happening then once again. One, the people will have their needs and wishes met firmly from all sorts of angles thus enhancing the function and appearance of health in the bargain. Second, it greatly reduces the risk of a run in with the occasional task-base in care. Lastly, which is not ideal to all sorts of people, the size of the providers just got expanded, though still very much engaged in the same basic process of caring for people. From there the only thing needed is the basis of care looking back in on itself once again.