Critique of Report on Nurses Views on Challenging Doctors Practice in an Acute Hospital

Critique of Report on Nurses Views on Challenging Doctors Practice in an Acute HospitalThe report on by Churchman and Doherty was well researched. The report gives clear indications on what is happening in the medical field and particularly on relations between the doctors and the nurses. The report is quite comprehensive as it involves analysis of the interaction between doctors and nurses from a two-sided perspective. This gave the report the credibility that it required most.On documentation of participants, the report is trustworthy, as this has been done comprehensively. According to the report, all the participants had an inclusive all rounded interview (Churchman & Doherty, 2010). These interviews were recorded giving the report a support base for its findings. Based on this fact, this report can be said to be credible as it is a product of in-depth analysis of these recordings. The participants in the interviews were twelve nurses who were mainly miIDle-aged. The recording of the interview conversations was done with utmost good faith. This was to ensure that the disclosed information would not harm the reputation, status or position of the respondents. The identity of the respondents was concealed but their views were recorded. Exhaustive information was obtained from the respondents through this platform thus ensuring efficiency. Respondents answered the questions without fear of intimidation from their seniors.The report, though comprehensive, fails to incorporate the views of the male nurses in aIDition to their female counterparts. These means that part of the affected parties were excluded from participation in the research. It is also not substantive to come up with conclusions that are based on analysis on one health center as a case study. However, it is notable that the can be considered as credible thanks to the openness and the willingness of participants to contribute. According to the report, interviews were only carried out on those that volunteered. This partly explains why most males turned down the interviews.The decision to use interviews has worked well for the research. Through these interviews, first-hand information is obtained from the respondents. This cushions the study from biased information that would be obtained if the researchers were to get this information using other methods. The credibility of information and findings arrived at is not in doubt as the data is obtained right from the field (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).On descriptive vividness, the report was very clear with an in-depth analysis of descriptions used. The report gives clear connections between the various aspects described in the study. Through these descriptions, the report makes it easy for the audience to understand the discussion at hand and make easy to connect various issues discussed. The descriptions given at the top of the report has worked well in aiding the audience to understand the report in its entirety. Through this report, the audience has been able to get to understand the status of the medical field before critically analyzing the same. This provides an overview through which the audience is able to follow up the unveilings and final position of the report (Churchman & Doherty, 2010). These descriptions also seek to qualify the correctness of the findings.The report can be said to be a success as it incorporates effective research methodology. The use of participants from the medical field is definitely a clear indication of the real picture on the ground. This involves interviews on the affected persons that are mostly the nurses. Specific cases given in the report gives the report credibility and cements the arguments of the participants in the research. The interviews carried out were mainly made up of open ended and situational questions that resulted in getting in-depth information of the situation in the medical profession (Churchman & Doherty, 2010).This report can be said to have an extended ethical consideration. Through the analysis, the report puts into mind the need to have all gender represented in the medical profession. This is demonstrated by its proposal to have educational systems changed to accommodate more women in the higher medical learning levels. This would probably provide the best platform through which gender inequality is dealt with as far as doctors are concerned. The report is however, ethically incorrect as it fails to incorporate views from doctors. This is very unfortunate given that doctors are part of the conflict that is being discussed. Failure to have their thoughts put in place lowers the credibility of the report. Failure to have males as participants has also not worked well for the research. While this is a great limitation to the research, it was inevitable as most of them were not ready to testify over this issue.The report is a product of an in-depth analysis of the relations between nurses and doctors in a given hospital. This report is not just out of guesswork or speculation as it has the support of materials that include actual figures. This means that the report can easily be audited to quantify the correctness of the contents contained in it. To quantify its arguments, the report on this study has provided figures on the participants, in aIDition to how they responded to the interviews. Through these figures, it is easier for one to come up with conclusions on the relations between nurses and doctors.The report has demonstrated how precise, yet inclusive, a research report can be. The paper seems to be having less quantity of words yet the matters covered in the research are wide. This is demonstrated by the use of short inferences to interviews and responses from participants. These responses, however short they may seem, gives the paper more credibility as it is evidence based. Quotations from some of the participants in the study are meant to reinforce the credibility of the study making its conclusions to be more believable (Churchman & Doherty, 2010). The report has not just left the audience to have their own conclusions but it has helped in analyzing the outcome of the research. This has made work of the audience far much easier as they get to understand more on reasons for the status in the medical field.From a philosophical perspective, men are usually led by supremacy and ego that makes them see women as weaker beings. Even when the female participants are correct, they are likely to twist matters to go their way so that they may look as if they are the ones that determine every success step. This might not always be true as has been found by the report. As pointed out in the report, men would want all work that successful to be attributed to their good work and leadership (Churchman & Doherty, 2010). This is well brought out from the interviews where nurses who are mostly women are not recognized, as all success is attributed to the doctors who comprise mostly of men. This in one way or the other discourages innovation, as nurses feel unappreciated. The report demonstrates that nurses are willing to criticize doctors and correct them whenever they are wrong. However, given the structural imbalance, they would not dare do this. They have no framework to support them, as their jobs would be on the line (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). This explains why they have to keep on playing games and treat doctors like gods, as they are the policy makers.Knowledge supremacy is what mainly brings about the difference between doctors and nurses. Doctors, having higher educational levels, believe that they have better knowledge than the nurses do. This, as pointed out in the report, results in perception that nurses are just but hands maids to doctors (Churchman & Doherty, 2010). The report has reflected this fact in a very clear way. This is through the data provided where nurses with longer service in the industry are twice more likely to challenge the work of doctors than are nurses that have worked for a shorter period.The report is very relevant to the historic activities as far as health care and male dominance is concerned. Since time immemorial, women have been playing a subordinate role in almost all matters affecting the society. Most of these are propagated by societal structural arrangements that sustain this status. For instance, men are provided with better environment through which they are able to learn and get to higher learning levels in the medical field. This leaves most women to the lower levels such as nursing. The nurses are structurally pinned down by the policies that cushion the males, who are mostly doctors, from any blame. The dominance of males in management levels makers them become untouchable. Being bosses, they cannot be easily corrected even when it seems that they are wrong. This is a very strong support to the reports arguments that male dominance in management is what kills innovation and contribution from nurses. Use of historical information has helped boost the justification of given arguments such as that on gender imbalance and structural discrimination.Male dominance in the doctoral sector is a great threat to success in the medical field. This has been well brought out by the paper through the outcomes of interviews carried out. According to the report, the male gender dominates in the doctors profession leaving many women to get to nursing positions. This according to the report has resulted in many nurses that happen to be female to feel inferior hence reducing their contributions to the medical practice even whenever they seem to be better than the nurses (Churchman & Doherty, 2010).Policies in the medical profession happen to be a hindrance in allowing nurses to have their contributions taken in. According to the report, many nurses would only confine their objection or contrary opinion to that of the doctors only on matters of procedure, and this is supported by organizational policies. This leaves much of would be positive contribution by the nurses running down the drain. Challenges facing nursing as a profession need to be aIDressed before they get out of hand. Given that they are a major part of stakeholders in the medical field, there is need for them to be considered in terms of making decisions that affect the field. From the report, it is clear that nurses are discouraged as they are treated in a manner to suggest that they aID very little to medical practice, which is not the case.ReferencesChurchman J. J., & Doherty, C. (2010). Nurses views on challenging doctors practice in an acute hospital. (40), 42-47.Rubin H. J., &Rubin, I. S. (2005). . London: Sage Publications