Case Study Of Wellton Hospital

Introduction

The ensuing study paper would be deliberative of the multiplicity of responsibilities and associated challenges which the young Waiting List Manager of the Wellton Hospital could experience concerning directing of individuals and teams in terms of performance management. These challenges would be explored from the perspective of setting of goals at both the individual and team levels and available methods of improvement of such practices would be explored as well. Furthermore, the methods, which could be utilised by the waiting list manager under consideration, to provide feedback to the data entry clerk of Wellton Hospital, Joan and to the waiting list team, would be taken into consideration in tandem with the problems and solutions to those problems which could be identified concerning such undertakings.

From a managerial perspective, according to Chiocchio, Rabbat and Lebel (2015), the fundamental necessity of setting of goals for individuals and for teams within the working architecture of any public service organisation such as that of Wellton Hospital, could be specified as the managerial perception that the more specific and challenging the goals could be, the better the performance would be on behalf of the working personnel. The case study of Wellton Hospital is indicative of the fact that the effectiveness and utility of the performance from the Clinical Support Directorate has been consistently diminishing prior to the appointment of the Waiting List Manager. The performance objectives are also considered to be the links which coordinate the organisational, working team based and individual level objectives. These linkages could be identified as the qualifications, experiences, average age levels, possession of necessary skills and knowledge base and finally the measures of personal interests in the job responsibilities on part of the Clinical Support Directorate staff of the Wellton Hospital. The first difficulty, in this context, as has been observed by Hellström et al (2015), is to determine the actual results which could be obtained through setting of clarified goals. These then could be further reflected as objectives on the individual and team levels. As per the available case study of Wellton Hospital, the Key Performance Indicators regarding the measure of effectiveness of Clinical Support staff had previously outlined the issues concerning overlooking of appointments of patients and this explained the consequential delays in instituting the care services to the patients and this also resulted in the cancellation of certain measures of appointments. This indicates the second difficulty of managing the balance between the individual capabilities and the performance related care objectives of Wellton Hospital concerning goal setting processes.

In this respect, Hughes et al (2016) has outlined the possible improvement of staff performance through the utilisation certain working methods by the Manager under consideration. The one could be envisaged, as has been stated by the Head of Clinical Support Directorateinitial at Wellton hospital in the Appraisee Brief of the provided case study, as the sensitisation of the Manager under consideration towards the sensibilities of the subordinate staff. This could foster, as per the observations of Mackenzie, Jeffcott and Xiao (2017), cooperation between the teams and the organisational segment as a whole. The practice of consistent diplomatic behaviour, on part of the Manager, towards the subordinates could as well lead to the decreasing of difficulties in the existing working relationships. Furthermore, formulation of clarified goals could be incumbent upon the abilities of the staff of executing the responsibility scenario which involves supervision of appointments concerning the relevant departmental and clinical segments and monitoring of the waiting list data compilation as well as the resolution of the complaints of the patients concerning the appointments and duration of time for which the patients have to wait in general at the hospital under consideration. The enhancement of the performance of the staff of Clinical Support Directorate would thus require, on part of the Manager concerned, the setting of specific goals on the basis of the evaluation of the experience level and interpersonal skills of the individuals serving under his managerial leadership.

According to Scott et al (2018), the negative psychological impacts of the behavioural traits of this newly appointed Manager on the data entry clerk has been so far imperceptible to the Manager himself. In this context, according to Nemeth (2017), the Waiting List Manager could utilise the OSCAR Model of feedback and mentoring.

For the Waiting List Team

According to Prenestini et al (2015), the feedback method which could be utilised by the Waiting List Manager could be outlined as the GROW model of feedback and coaching. This model would assist the Manager to provide feedback on the developmental opportunities associated with the skills and knowledge of the team members.

Expected problems

Improper work efficiency perception, on part of Joan and the lack of understanding to change. Improper communication between the Manager and Joan which could further complicate the sharing of performance based feedback. This could also hamper the process of managing the performance of Joan by the Manager. Absence of professional collaboration in between Joan and the Manager on the basis of mistrust of the subordinate which could hinder the efforts of the Manager to properly articulate the performance assessment outcome to Joan. The existing perception of non-compatibility between Joan and the Manager could further foster the assumption within the data entry clerk that the Manager has been improperly judgemental on the wrong basis. This could stonewall any attempt by the manager to suggest possible employee performance improvement method to Joan.

The Waiting List Manager could encounter the problem of ambiguity in terms of clarified communication with the team members. The challenge of having to consider how not to offend the sensibilities of the mostly experienced employees of the team. The GROW model would require the Manager to outline the exact factuality which influences the operations of the Wellton Hospital and this could be a considerable problem since the waiting list management team members could have their personal perceptions regarding the impact of their own roles on the overall working process outcomes.

Overcoming of problems

According to Platis, Reklitis and Zimeras (2015), Joan would have to be consistently made aware of the necessity to adopt different measures for maintaining data accuracy. This could be comprehended to be associated with that of the initial phase of the clarification of outcomes as per the specifications of the OSCAR coaching model. This phase would outline the long term objectives and outcomes as well as the coveted success measures.

Measuring and sharing the performance of Joan after predetermined periods of performance observation through documented evidence with special emphasis on the accuracy and appropriateness of the recorded data by the clerk. This phase could be related to the Situational phase of the OSCAR coaching model. The rationale is that this phase could outline the concurrent situation and could as well bring into focus the actual sequence of efforts which are invested in the overall process.

In case of the waiting list management team, a solution could be the Analysis of the differential responsibilities as well as the ascribed job profiles. Furthermore, the expected outcomes and the standards of performance have to be iterated in clearest of manners. This phase could be reflective of the Goal phase of the GROW model where the objectives, the available time and the goals could be outlined in the perspectives of the management operations.

Differing the discussions regarding the individual employees so that the sensibilities of the mostly experienced employees of the waiting list management teams could be cared for. This phase would have to be associated with the willingness phase of the Grow model where the way to move forward would be determined.

As per the research of Swaminath et al (2018), the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) based theoretical framework model could be utilised to outline the causes of underperformance and to illustrate the manner in which the actual roots of this problem could be envisaged. The AMO model suggests that improper measures of employee engagement and dearth of proper direction and motivation for the waiting list management personnel, who mostly, belong to the advanced age groups has been one of the reasons of this problem. This specific problem is suggestive of the Motivational aspects of the AMO model. Apart from this, the deficiency in the necessary co-ordination regarding instituting of procedural changes within the waiting list team, is another of such reasons. This particular cause is reflective of the Ability factor of the AMO model. The realisation of these causes could reorient the performance measures of Clinical Support staff towards better management of waiting list based patients (Shirley, 2016).

The second indicator has been the absence of recording the informal complaints within the purview of the complaints policy. The causality could be outlined as the absence of any proper training for the staff members who have been made responsible for documenting and recording of different complaint formats. This could also be related to the Opportunity based angle of the AMO since the ensuring of proper performance sustenance and developmental means have not been made available to the clinical support staff.

The informal approach

According to Rothwell, Hohne and King (2018), the informal option which could be utilised for the purpose of resolving the aforementioned performance issues could be based on the managerial and organisational commitment of ensuring consistent and both ways communication with the waiting list management staff. In this respect, the Waiting List Manager would have to dawn the responsibility to continuously confront the subordinate staff members with the identified problems and would have to persistently and diplomatically point out the various performance based issues which could be detected, to the waiting list management working team members. The emphasis would have to be concentrated on the formulation of an open environment which could emphasise upon the factors of mutual support provision in between the manager and the subordinates (Valentine, Nembhard and Edmondson, 2015).

The enforcement of disciplinary proceedings could be premised upon addressing of the grievances and ensuring discipline on the basis of the ACAS Code of Practice. According to Scott et al (2018), the ACAS Code of Practice establishes practical guidance procedures of addressing grievance and disciplinary issues at the workplaces. Non-compliance to the ACAS guidelines does not result in the liability to legal proceedings, however, the institution of specific employment tribunal could be performed to consider the case specifics. In terms of the key points of legislative framework, the ACAS code outlines some specifics regarding a formal approach which are as the following: The Wellton Hospital could institute legal employment tribunals to address the non-compliance to disciplinary norms and while considering the cases of relevance, the formal approach would have to consider the most effective measures of conflict resolution. The potentiality to resolve the issues existing in between the Waiting List Manager and the clinical support staff of the waiting list management team through an informal approach would have to be looked into initially. The employment tribunal could adjust remunerations of the staff of the waiting list team up to 25% on the basis for unreasonable non-compliance with the disciplinary stipulations.

The performance improvement cycle is primarily utilised for the designing, measuring, assessing and improving the performance of the outlined organisational strategies. This is a critical as well as particular theoretical tool through which the existing problems of any employee management mechanism, such as the one under consideration in this study, could be resolved. In terms of the utilitarian perspective of such a theoretical and procedural tool, the academic observation is definite. This observation suggests that the performance improvement cycle has the specific orientation towards the enabling the targeted human resource element to meet the specified goals for the employees or human resources under consideration within any organisational perspective. For this procedural tool to be successful the emphasis has to be on the stringent implementation of the processes included in this tool and on the setting of clearly defined goals in terms of performance improvement.

Susan Bell could be advised to design a specific engagement strategy with the appointed Waiting List Manager. This could be considered to be of utmost significance since such a method could lead to the driving home of the necessity to ascribe equal priority to all of the responsibilities of human resource management processes in the current organisation of Wellton Hospital. The formulation of such a strategy could further achieve three specific goals. The first one is the ensuring of preclusion of any situation where overlapping of efforts could occur. This would require deliberate and careful evaluation of the planned procedures while the strategy could be at the formative stage. The second would be the determination of actual points of leverage through which the procedural objectives could be arrived at. This would involve the periodical reviews of the strategy implementation outcomes. The third one would be the setting out of the actual modes of techniques through which the justification of such a strategy could be established to the involved human resources under consideration. This could be of vital importance since the new Waiting List Manager of the Wellton Hospital would be required to provide accurate guidance to the subordinates in performing their specific task roles.

The Waiting List Manager could be provided specific measuring criteria through which the performance of the person could be measured. This could be considered as a direct and feedback based approach. Furthermore, for the purpose of maintaining objectivity and accuracy, the evaluation yardstick would be consistently developed through the regular reviews from the subordinates of the Manager. The formulation and delivery of the review yardstick related criteria would have to be performed by the Head of the Clinical Support Directorate within the Appraisee Brief.

In this context, it is necessary to establish the justification of such a recommendation. This could be comprehended in the manner of undertaking an organisational reconciliation amongst the irate employees and the Waiting List Manager. Furthermore, this reverse feedback based performance evaluation could be prescribed for another specific reason. This has been the fact that the case study has suggested that the appointment of the Waiting List Manager has resulted in the partial improvement of outcomes of the performance based responsibilities ascribed to the staff of Clinical Support Directorate of the Wellton Hospital.

Based on the derived data, the performance of the Manager under consideration could be assessed.

Ultimately, Susan Bell could institute specific improvement procedures in motion through advising the Manager on the different methods of performance improvement.

The positive effects of the appointment of the Waiting List Manager, as per the case study, have been the implementation of changes regarding the working processes and systems through which the instances of patient waiting and cancellation of appointments have been demonstratively reduced. In spite of this, the causes of the trust and support environment undermining in the Waiting List Management team could be envisaged as the following:

The frequently emerging complaints of the perceived high handedness exhibited through the human resource management procedures of the newly appointed Manager.

The perceived autocratic and authoritative approach exuded by the Manager under consideration. This has been, arguably, the core issue which has perpetuated the rift, in procedural terms, in between the employees and the Waiting List Manager.

The absence of involving the staff of the Clinical Support Directorate from critical decision formulation. Lack of open and both ways communication between the staff and the Waiting List Manager.

The sensitisation of the Waiting List Manager of the fact that the previous experience of his regarding the call centre based human resource management systems could be of little effectiveness in the new job responsibility of his since all of the subordinates of the Manager are of greater age and experience than that of his. Thus, diplomatic approaches and care towards the sensibilities would have to be at the central considerations regarding the resolution development for the existing situation.

Utilisation of both ways based communication skills by the Manager. This would require an assertive yet accommodative approach by the Waiting List Manager. This could be better acknowledged as a communication process which would be based on a situational initiative based procedural leadership, emanating from the Manager. The measure of situational initiatives could provide both the Manager and the employees with the stimulus to share their opinions and perceptions within a categorically methodical manner. The both ways communication could resolve any latent disagreement or grievance through providing both the Manager and the staff with accurate information regarding actual thinking of each other. This could preclude the situations where misunderstandings could take place.

Articulation of the vision based focus of the activities of the hospital and the associated requirements of the Clinical Support Directorate so as to provide a direct comparison between the exhibited performance of the staff and the necessitated outcomes. This could assist the aggrieved employees to realign their professional focus to the fundamentals of their responsibilities of providing effective services to the patients.

The emphasis on more sensitised and diplomatic handling of the conditions related to the subordinates of greater age limits. It would be assistive to the Waiting List Manager to pay particular attention to this context of the human resource management.

Contribution to the formulation of learning environment and self-assessment practices by the newly appointed manager through converting the numbers of difficulties in the working relationships into workable options.

Undertaking of necessary follow-up measures through holding discussions on the necessities of the employees to provide their feedback in the most timely manner to the Waiting List Manager so he could perform the necessary amendments. The objective would be to attain the coveted performance standards.

Looking for further insights on Business information system? Click here.

Conclusion

Reference List

• Chiocchio, F., Rabbat, F. and Lebel, P., 2015.Multi‐level efficacy evidence of a combined interprofessional collaboration and project management training program for healthcare project teams. Project Management Journal, 46(4), pp.20-34.
• Hellström, A., Lifvergren, S., Gustavsson, S. and Gremyr, I., 2015.Adopting a management innovation in a professional organization: The case of improvement knowledge in healthcare. Business Process Management Journal, 21(5), pp.1186-1203.
• Hughes, A.M., Gregory, M.E., Joseph, D.L., Sonesh, S.C., Marlow, S.L., Lacerenza, C.N., Benishek, L.E., King, H.B. and Salas, E., 2016. Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), p.1266.
• Nemeth, C.P., 2017. The context for improving healthcare team communication.In Improving Healthcare Team Communication (pp. 1-7).CRC Press.
• Platis, C., Reklitis, P. and Zimeras, S., 2015.Relation between job satisfaction and job performance in healthcare services. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, pp.480-487.
• Prenestini, A., Calciolari, S., Lega, F. and Grilli, R., 2015. The relationship between senior management team culture and clinical governance: Empirical investigation and managerial implications. Health care management review, 40(4), pp.313-323.
• Rothwell, W.J., Hohne, C.K. and King, S.B., 2018. Human performance improvement: Building practitioner performance. Routledge.
• Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. and Marshall, M., 2018. Healthcare performance and organisational culture.CRC Press.
• Swaminath, D., Hefner, J., Jenkins, L.A., Suarez, J.A., Meyerrose, G. and Huerta, T.R., 2018. Improving Clinical Documentation in an Academic Setting: A Multidisciplinary Team Approach Focused on the Physician’s Perspective. Journal of Healthcare Management, 63(5), pp.e88-e98.
• Valentine, M.A., Nembhard, I.M. and Edmondson, A.C., 2015. Measuring teamwork in health care settings: a review of survey instruments. Medical care, 53(4), pp.e16-e30.