A Discussion Response the Professor

A Discussion Response the Professor

Hello Professor,

I see the perspective you take on the issue of safety in HC in relation to other industries, and I have to agree with you that, indeed, there are a lot of leeways, if I should say, when it comes to the safety of patients. As you have rightly noted, the pilot is a stakeholder, and when things go wrong, they will indeed be impacted, as will all passengers. The nurses and physicians do not die when fatal medical errors are made. Perhaps that is why there are so many laxities, including failure to report medical errors and slackness in adopting a Just Culture (Edwards, 2018).

The US healthcare industry is characterized by inconvenient yet expensive delivery systems that have increasing numbers of dissatisfied consumers. This has been caused by an overestimation of patient care levels needed as practitioners and researchers focus on complicated diseases while neglecting patients who report to healthcare facilities with common ailments. Disruptive innovations that are convenient, simpler, and cheaper with regard to services and products have been suggested as the way forward in resolving the current HC status (HBR, 2011).

Disruptive innovation has been attempted within the HC, but as you mention, it may be time for an out-of-the-box approach to be taken. The HC should consider proactively partnering with the leading industries in safety (Harvard Business Review, 2011), such as the Navy, and learn what they do and how the same can be replicated in the HC. Further, the HC should also do the same with other HCs in leading developed countries to see how they ensure safety and replicate the same. Industry players, as well as consumers, need to actively promote services that are of high quality and which are also affordable. Market forces will need to be given room to play out, and this can only be done when the current deeply rooted forces are unplugged. The first and perhaps the most important step to take is to invest more in R&D that simplifies problems that are complex using less high-end technologies. Projects that focus on simplifying diagnosis, as well as treatment of common diseases at fewer investments, would significantly enhance the delivery of health care. As for complex diseases, there should be an embracing of a new business model where specialized institutions that focus solely on catering to such categories of patients are opened and offer high-tech care for the same. When there is a separation of general /common diseases healthcare facilities, and those that focus on single categories of diseases such as renal or cardiac illnesses, more focused attention is bound to follow, which will, in turn, result in better service provision for all patient groups (HBR, 2011)

Sadly, a supply-demand approach is what prevails in the country’s HC, and I am of the opinion that this is more of a cultural aspect than it is a coincidence. The US is a competitive country, and as a global economic leader, it could be that the HC adopts the same culture and operates its services on the same foundation of maximizing profits, creating demand through suppressing supply and soliciting for the highest bidder to offer basic HC services at exorbitant prices. Accordingly, stakeholders will need to sit around the table and re-structure the HC in the US with new legislation created that would criminalize suppressed supply and incentives given to facilities or organizations that positively and impactfully contribute to better service provision. This will include those that will come up with disruptive technology that would change the HC system from the outside in.

References

Edwards, M. T. (2018). An assessment of the impact of just culture on quality and safety in US hospitals. American Journal of Medical Quality, 33(5), 502-508.

Harvard Business Review (2011). Harvard Business review on fixing the healthcare from the inside & out.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

A Discussion Response the Professor

June 26, 2019

The discussion response focused on the topic of “Fixing Health Care from the Inside out,” and it is below. I would like to respond to my Professor’s response below. Please see the textbook readings and the article for the assignment.

• Harvard Business Review (2011). Harvard Business review on fixing the healthcare from the inside & out. Pages 1-29

Thank you.

Respond to “Fixing Health Care from the Inside”.

A Discussion Response the Professor

Review the Fixing health care from the inside today article in the Harvard Business Review. Compare and contrast the recommendations in the article with the textbook readings for this session. Discuss what it means to fix health care from the “inside” in 300 words and respond to two other postings (100 words each).

The biggest irony of all time is that despite the US being an economic giant, its healthcare system continuously fails to meet the needs of those that run the very wheels of its economy-the populace. Every year, there are more than 98,000 deaths in hospitals around the country which are caused by medical errors as reported by the Institute of Medicine. More studies by the IOM have also shown that more people suffer from hospital-acquired infections. There are 88 out of 100 people who die from illnesses or injuries due to treatment with as many as six deaths from the same (Burke, 2003). Fixing the healthcare from the inside out means starting from the contact point where patients seek medical help. It means doing an overhaul of the way patient care is delivered at the grass-root level.

This can be achieved through four steps as proposed in the article which will involve the health practitioners taking ownership of the care delivery while saving lives and lowering medical costs (Nash et al., 2012).  The proposed opportunities do not require any market reconfiguration, legislation, or any capital investments in most cases. The new approaches will need to be started immediately with results achieved in the short term by administrators, doctors, and the nurses as well as technicians working in healthcare facilities.

Eradication of ambiguities is the first of these steps where the confusion is systematically identified and eliminated in problematic work processes. Scoring gains through small changes is the second step where significant problems are broken to more modest, manageable blocks, which generate a flow of constant changes that eventually deliver substantial results. The third step is to conduct simulations where trial runs for problematic processes are used in creating and testing solutions. Lastly, the change should be institutionalized with leaders in healthcare facilities taking the forefront in championing and encouraging the embracing of the new policies and manner in which care is delivered by all staff in hospitals.

God Bless