Final answer:
Issues with obtaining prior approval for clinical management guidelines by the Board of Midwifery or Nursing include delays in care, outdated practices, and ethical dilemmas. Healthcare professionals might follow authority against their own judgements, affecting patient outcomes. Balancing regulations with healthcare access and professional autonomy is complex and critical.
Step-by-step explanation:
The requirement for prior approval of clinical management guidelines by the Board of Midwifery or Board of Nursing can present several issues. Delay in approval may hinder timely access to care and may also result in medical professionals following guidelines they deem outdated or not in the best interest of the patient. Studies like those by Martin and Bull (2008) and Burger (2009) show that healthcare professionals may follow authority even when it conflicts with their beliefs and knowledge of best practices, which may affect patient outcomes negatively. The case of the Interagency Policy at MUSC demonstrates how policy can influence clinical practice, potentially involving legal and social services in medical decision-making, which could complicate patient care. Furthermore, ethical guidelines established in response to historical abuses, such as the Nuremberg Code and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), emphasize the importance of oversight in clinical practices to prevent exploitation and ensure patient safety.
Restrictions like those debated in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt show the complexities of balancing regulations with access to healthcare services, such as abortion. These restrictions can lead to tensions between healthcare standards and professional autonomy. The pressure to comply with board-approved guidelines can impede nursing and midwifery practices that are more aligned with current evidence and ethical deliberation, reflecting the delicate balance between governance and clinical discretion in healthcare.