2. A series of questions that will target the issues in the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System PVAHCS case most

PVAHCS Analysis Worksheet (Assignment 1) PVAHCS Analysis Worksheet (Assignment 1) WGU D515 Enterprise Risk Management

1 1 / 3

PVAHCS Analysis Worksheet (Assignment 1)

Instructions:

This worksheet has two parts:

• A table to analyze each of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) allegations and justify corrective action solutions using

IRAC methodology.

• A series of questions that will target the issues in the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System (PVAHCS) case most

relevant in the development of a new enterprise risk management (ERM) plan.

Resources:

Use the following resources located in the course to complete this worksheet:

Review of Alleged Patient Deaths, Patient Wait Times, and Scheduling Practices at the Phoenix VA Health Care System

Enterprise Risk Management: Issues and Cases

Note: This text investigates ERM case studies, both inside the healthcare industry and out. It also explores the key issues for implementing ERM strategies.Impact Assessment Framework

2 2 / 3

PVAHCS Analysis Worksheet (Assignment 1) Part 1. IRAC Table Formulate an IRAC (issue, rule, application, and conclusion) response for each of the five OIG violations that includes the

following:

Issue: Summarize the relevant facts for each violation in the OIG report.

Rule: Discuss the relevant ethical principles and legal or regulatory requirements for each violation.Application: Analyze how the violations deviated from the ethical principles and legal or regulatory requirements discussed.Conclusion: Recommend appropriate ERM corrective actions or solutions for each of the violations.Clinically significant delays in care Summary of relevant

facts:

The violation being analyzed is clinically significant delays in care. The issue at hand is whether the Phoenix VA Health Care System has intentionally caused delays in care, which is in direct violation of VHA Policy 1230 (5) (VA.gov, 2022), when they purposely omitted patients from their electronic waitlist (EWL), utilized unofficial, private waitlists, and committed several other inappropriate scheduling practices (VA OIG, 2014).Discussion and analysis of deviation from ethical principles and legal, or regulatory requirements or

standards:

The official investigation of the OIG “identified 28 instances of clinically significant delays in care associated with access to care or patient scheduling” (VA OIG, 2014). Additionally, the investigation uncovered 3,500 veterans placed on an unofficial waitlist. Doing so led to a violation of VHA Policy 1230(5), which sanctions delays in care for the Veterans. This directive was also updated to omit the use of the EWL because of the direct violations. Clinically significant harm, up to and including the death of several Veterans, was caused by this violation. This practice conflicts directly with the principle of nonmaleficence (McCormick, n.d.), which mandates that healthcare providers should not create any situation that may result in harm or injury to a patient.ERM corrective action Removing the EWL from practice and reestablishing an electronic scheduling program would be the best

• / 3