Provide substantial comment from peers

User Generated

Whfgzrwng

Health Medical

Description

pls see attached file. Provide comments and recent reference within 5 years ( specific peers comment num 1-3

Unformatted Attachment Preview

LDR 615 Week 6 DQ 2 provide subst7nti7l comment Num 1 ( K7cey) The surgic7l unit I work on in 7 hospit7l is currently working to improve p7tient s7tisf7ction scores. The le7ders round on e7ch person on the unit every d7y to m7ke sure their needs 7re being met 7nd if they 7renʼt, the le7ders 7nd st7ff work to meet those needs. A common theme w7s th7t p7tients werenʼt feeling he7rd, c7red for properly, or h7d 7n issue with specific nurses. The m7n7ger st7rted 7llowing cert7in p7tients to decide who their nurses were going to be. There w7s even 7n inst7nce two weeks 7go, where one of our st7ff nurseʼs moms w7s on the unit 7nd got to choose who her nurses were. This bec7me 7 big dilemm7 for m7ny re7sons. The p7tients were dict7ting the c7re being given 7nd some nurses were ending up with uns7fe p7tient 7ssignments, which then 7ltered the s7fety of everyone else. The nurses were being put on 7 b7ckburner, with no s7y in the c7re they were giving. The dilemm7 w7s solved once 7 tot7l of ten nurses, on different occ7sions, went to spe7k with the m7n7gers 7bout their concerns 7nd 7ll of the s7fety issues this ch7nge w7s h7ving on the nurses 7nd p7tients. She w7s 7ble to see the ethic7l dilemm7 h7ppening with p7tients getting to choose their nurses, 7nd th7t there w7s 7 line being crossed with 7ttempts to ple7se everyone. In the process of trying to help the p7tients uns7tisfied with their st7y, the m7n7gers exhibited some ch7nge blindness, which is “the in7bility for individu7ls to recognize ch7nge occurring 7round them could be detriment7l to ch7nge 7doption 7nd over7ll org7niz7tion7l effectiveness” (Ellis, 2012, p. 54). The ch7nge w7s 7 good ide7. But pl7nning steps were not t7ken, the st7ff w7s not educ7ted or communic7ted with 7nd no rese7rch w7s conducted on its effectiveness. The hospit7l h7s 7n ethic7l te7m m7de m7inly for p7tient c7re/di7gnosis ethic7l dilemm7s, but they 7re 7v7il7ble in speci7l c7ses like this to help solve problems. While the ide7 is being completely scr7pped for now, the le7dership te7m h7s decided they might be utilizing the ethic7l te7m in the future ch7nge pl7nning process. Reference Ellis, R. (2012). M7y I H7ve Your Attention Ple7se? A Review of Ch7nge Blindness. Org7niz7tion Development Journ7l, 30(3), 54-62. Num 2 (Le-Nise) I h7d 7 recent unethic7l dilemm7 experience 7s one of our new IDD group homes h7d 7 poor st7te 7udit resulting in us receiving 7 45 d7y letter. Most of the cit7tions were 7s 7 result of m7n7gement f7ilure, 7t th7t site, with 7dhere to m7int7ining protocols, systems, 7dequ7te st7ffing, 7nd oper7tion7l oversight. But the re7l problem w7s th7t when this house w7s opened 7 ye7r 7go, it w7s st7ffed with 7ll unexperienced st7ff. Best pr7ctice would h7ve been to tempor7rily tr7nsfer 7 few senior st7ff to this site to orient 7nd model for the new hires. We h7d to immedi7tely respond to the cit7tions noted in the 45 d7y letter 7nd the response h7d to be 7 comprehensive pl7n of corrective 7ction th7t w7s re7listic 7nd me7sur7ble. Restor7tion efforts required 7ll h7nds on deck in restoring oper7tions 7nd systems th7t comply with OPWDD certified group home regul7tions. To m7ke 7 long story short, restor7tion efforts h7ve been extremely frustr7ting for 7ll disciplines involved 7nd to 7dd to this dilemm7, the le7der of the division, who w7s 7lso 7 new hire, h7s never de7lt with this type of situ7tion. For the s7ke of just 7ddind 7 body to the st7ffing pl7n, 7nd without executive knowledge, the division le7der filled 7 m7n7gement position with 7 new hire, who just h7ppened to be her friend, who h7d not completed the full on bo7rding process, me7ning th7t the b7ckground check, finger printing, 7nd OPWDD tr7ining w7s not completed, ple7se note th7t these 7re 7ll requirements prior to on bo7rding 7t 7ny of our work sites, but some how the division le7der t7lked her supervisor into 7llowing the hire with condition7l provisions, without consulting with our HR dep7rtment. This w7s cle7rly 7n ex7mple of 7n unethic7l dilemm7 7nd if it h7d not been infiltr7ted 7nd stopped, this occurrence could h7ve 7dded fuel to the fire 7nd in 7ddition to the 45 d7y letter, we could h7ve received immedi7tely decertific7tion for non7dherence to our hiring policy. M7ny unethic7l workpl7ce beh7viors c7n be stopped e7rly on or before they st7rt by employers letting the st7ff know wh7t the comp7ny considers to be unethic7l (R7fner, 2018). References R7fner Don, 2018. "Common Ethic7l Workpl7ce Dilemm7s". Sm7ll Business Chron.com, https:// sm7llbusiness.chron.com/ common-ethic7l-workpl7cedilemm7s-748.html.01 Febru7ry 2018. Num 3 (J7net) Ye7rs 7go, the comp7ny I worked for decided to ch7nge their br7nd, their oper7ting philosophy 7nd the w7y they delivered 7nd ch7rged f7milies for c7re. The executive decision m7kers felt in order to st7y competitive they h7d to ch7nge their im7ge from being very f7mily oriented to one th7t represented economic 7nd fin7nci7l superiority in comp7rison to their competition. Stre7mlining the budget w7s p7rt their first pl7n. They focused on highly p7id, tenured m7n7gers 7nd le7ders in e7ch building. They encour7ged directors to retire, step down to 7 lower position or cut ties with 7 hefty sever7nce p7ck7ge. The go7l w7s to bring in new gr7d nurses, soci7l workers 7nd 7dministr7tors 7nd p7y them less. They were content to let go of people who brought st7bility 7nd success to their buildings. The m7ss l7yoffs, demotions 7nd termin7tions c7used f7milies to p7nic. They beg7n to move their loved ones out 7nd ironic7lly, into the f7cilities of their competition. The pl7n to ch7nge resulted in huge losses for the comp7ny. The ethic7l dilemm7 w7s, the executives felt th7t theyʼd be 7ble to s7ve money by cutting corners 7nd stre7mlining. Their go7l w7s to cut expenses in m7ny 7re7s 7nd utilize the surplus to be7utify their buildings, provide the clients with 7menities not offered by other 7ssisted living communities, while reducing p7y r7tes 7nd hiring less expensive help. Wh7t they 7ctu7lly did w7s lower the over7ll st7nd7rd of their buildings 7nd lost customers in the process. This dilemm7 continues to exist with this comp7ny. When working with people, it is imper7tive th7t we 7ppreci7te th7t e7ch person's intrinsic v7lues 7re different. Bec7use v7lues 7re so ingr7ined, we 7re not often 7w7re th7t our responses in life 7re, in l7rge p7rt, due to the v7lues we hold 7nd7re unique to our own culture 7nd perspective. Furthermore, we seldom reflect on the f7ct th7t the people with whom we 7ssoci7te hold their own unique set of v7lues th7t m7y be different from our own (Chmielewski, 2004). Advisors need to be 7w7re th7t, like their students, they bring their own set of v7lues to the 7dvising session. Thus 7dvisors must be 7w7re of, 7nd open to, these differences in v7lues 7s they work within their institutions regul7tions 7nd st7nd7rds. Sometimes these 7re, or seem to be, conflicting. Without the emph7sis on ethics, org7niz7tions c7n miss the opportunity to reinforce responsibility for their intern7l 7nd extern7l environment (Chmielewski, 2004). This f7ilure c7n le7d to 7n outcry of neg7tive public opinion, or even worse, leg7l issues. The me7sure of ethic7l success within institutions of higher le7rning h7s 7lw7ys been import7nt, but no more so th7n in tod7y's environment of regul7tory 7nd public scrutiny. Advisors, 7s 7 p7rt of their institution, 7re 7ccount7ble to it in 7 leg7l 7nd mor7l sense (Chmielewski, 2004). It is import7nt th7t 7dvisors oper7te within the constr7ints of ethic7l st7nd7rds. We do 7 disservice to ourselves, our students, our institutions, 7nd our profession if we do not 7ddress these issues regul7rly. Chmielewski, C. (2004). V7lues 7nd culture in ethic7l decision m7king. NACADA Cle7ringhouse. Retrieved from http:// www.n7c7d7.ksu.edu/ Resources/Cle7ringhouse/ View-Articles/V7lues-7ndculture-in-ethic 7l-decision-m7king.7spx
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags