Driscoll's Model of Reflection: A Framework for Evaluating Professionalism in Clinical Practice

This article discusses Driscoll's model of reflection and its application in evaluating professionalism in clinical practice. It includes a case study analysis of legal and ethical considerations involved in sharing patient information without consent. The article also references relevant laws and codes of conduct for healthcare providers.

Drsicolls model of reflection

Table of Contents
REFLECTION.................................................................................................................................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................2

REFLECTION
The Driscoll model is referring as framework that is used for reflection, developed into the
form of structure that process to guide the reflection. It started with experience in clinical
practice. In context with case study, professionalism is followed where nurses must take consent
from Maria to share the diagnosis and prognosis report to caller. Later, she is recognised as
Maria mother (Ahlers and et. al., 2019). As per the nursing and midwifery council, there are
some of professional code that is used to follow by nurses such as taking proper responsibilities
and care of patient. The legal aspect that analyse within the case study is that nurses must take
concern to share their detail to someone, in addition, they also show aspect where patient privacy
or confidentiality related with medical fraction is also breached (Choi and et. al., 2020).
Therefore, Privacy act 1988 is taking consideration that is relevant to case study. It usually
outlines major responsibility that most healthcare provider has to comply with the managing
health and personal information where nurse share the information to someone who is later
identify as Maria mother which is not ethical (Deslandes and et. al., 2018). In my viewpoint,
description is clear from above discussion that relatively show that someone called to ward nurse
and introduced as Maria mother (Patient mother). In this, without any cross examination nurses
shares the detail of diagnosis and treatment with current investigation to caller without nay
consent with patient (Maria). With my viewpoint, it is unethical as per NMC code and reference
to professionalism. Therefore, it is also analysing that when Maria known that her mother called
her then she became angry. In addition, it is breach of ethical consideration within
professionalism where respect and autonomy is not taken place for Maria. The nurses must take
the concern of Maria before sharing the information to her mother. Moreover, Care Act 2014 is
also mentioned that the professional seek to consent to share the information whenever possible.
In the context with Driscroll model, I used to evaluate that the patient consent is important with
the law of Care Act 2014. As per the above reflection on case study, I learn that the data of
patient never share with someone because it is part of legislation where patient data and
information must keep safe from other until proper authorisation is not taken (Nayak, 2022).
1

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Ahlers, D., Driscoll, P., Wibe, H. and Wyckmans, A., 2019, October. Co-creation of positive
energy blocks. In IOP conference series: earth and environmental science (Vol. 352, No.
1, p. 012060). IOP Publishing.
Choi, E.M., Maity, T., Kursumovic, A., Lu, P., Bi, Z., Yu, S., Park, Y., Zhu, B., Wu, R.,
Gopalan, V. and Wang, H., 2020. Nanoengineering room temperature ferroelectricity into
orthorhombic SmMnO3 films. Nature communications, 11(1), pp.1-9.
Deslandes, R., Lucas, C., Hughes, M.L. and Mantzourani, E., 2018. Development of a template
to facilitate reflection among student pharmacists. Research in Social and Administrative
Pharmacy, 14(11), pp.1058-1063.
Nayak, S., 2022. An intersectional model of reflection: is social work fit for purpose in an
intersectionally racist world?. Critical and Radical Social Work, pp.1-16.
2

3