CASE STUDY ON IDENTIFICATION (Essay Sample)

Case Study 2: Identification Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Instructor Case Study 2: Identification 1. Addressing Resistance to Improvement One of the strategies would be through continuous stakeholder engagement. The hospital staff plays a crucial role in service delivery and determines the length of stay for the patients. Continually engaging them, seeking their input, addressing their concerns, and incorporating their suggestions into the improvement plans can help eliminate resistance. People are less likely to resist change that they have helped to create. Thus, engaging the employees will help the management identify potential issues that will likely arise during the implementation process and address them promptly. Another strategy to address resistance would be to incentivize participation. Rewarding employees who are receptive to change helps to motivate other workers to be more open to the changes. Human beings tend to support initiatives that benefit them in one way or another. Therefore, incentive programs, such as recognition or performance-based financial rewards, help increase employee motivation to embrace the changes. This approach can be implemented with performance and evaluation measures, whereby the organization tracks each employee's performance and institutes accountability mechanisms to ensure that the members perform their duties as expected. Resistance can also be reduced through educating the employees about the change. Before introducing the changes, all employees must understand the reason for the change and how it affects them. Providing crucial information to the employees on the change, why it is happening, and how they will benefit from it allows the workers to weigh on the change and provide feedback. The management can then engage them more on what must be done to ensure they are comfortable with the changes. The training process also equips the employees with enhanced skills to adapt to any other change relevant to the new improvements that may arise. 2. How Implementation of the Protocol Might Have Been Different Implementation of the protocol without the input of the health IT, quality improvement, and experts in patient care may have suffered delays because of the resistance to change or other challenges associated with the stakeholders involved. Lack of proper coordination and collaboration during project implementation leads to feelings of isolation among the members. For example, the quality improvement team may have needed help understanding how the new changes were meant to improve service delivery. Educating these members on why the change was necessary and then training them to embrace the latest technologies may have consumed much time and resources. Lack of expert input would have exposed the project to risks such as increased readmission rates following hastened services. High readmission rates imply poor customer outcomes and higher expenses for the insurance companies and the hospitals, which defeats the purpose of the changes. Therefore, the uncertainty that would have arisen from failure to consult experts would have resulted in poor patient outcomes with a possibility of high readmission rates. The lack of engagement of the health IT experts would have stalled the project altogether because the teams relied on the efficiency of the technologies to monitor service delivery towards reducing the length of stay. Consequently, the health IT team needed to collaborate by providing information on the potential problems, what needed to be done, and how the systems should operate towards achieving the intended goals (Feldman et al., 2019). Therefore, successful project implementation requires total dedication and input from all stakeholders directly affected by the changes. Failure to seek the input of any of them leads to unnecessary delays, uncertainties, and even stalling of the project. How the Case Study Fits and Exemplifies the Characteristics of a High-Reliability Organization High-reliability organizations (HROs) are prominent for operating in highly hazardous environments characterized by high failure risk, and to counter such risks, they demand systematic safety processes in managing complex technology. Enya et al. (2020) highlight five defining characteristics of such organizations: “preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify, sensitivity to operation, commitment to resilience, and difference to expertise” (3). Systems in such organizations are tightly coupled, implying that they are inte...