Written Case Study Analysis
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Written Case Study Analysis
Description of Case
This case scenario revolves around improving patient care with the help of an important quality improvement tool: the Six-Sigma approach. The facility owner acquired some insights on the need to provide patient-centered assisted care and asked the administrator to enforce the change. The administer of this facility was cognizant of an approach or quality tool that could be used to bring the desired change. He had learned about the Sigma tool from the previous employer, and he was pretty sure about its effectiveness in bringing the desired changes or outcomes. He was very certain that this tool would make the assisted living facility a more patient-focused organization. However, the proposed change comes with some drawbacks, including limited resources and the embracement of the change by various stakeholders.
Relevant Stakeholders and Values
The key stakeholders, in this case, include the administrator, residents, patients, and the owner of the facility. The administrator will act as the project manager, and his role may change as he will have extra responsibilities after the new change has been enforced. The patients are the most affected stakeholders because they are the beneficiaries of the proposed changes. Further, in case the project is not successful, the patients will likewise be affected. The residents may enjoy the good patient outcomes associated with the high-quality care provided by the facility. This improves the quality of life amongst their relatives. The owner will incur the extra cost associated with the proposed change but will eventually enjoy the ultimate outcomes of the successful implementation of the change. The most notable values are the efficiency on the side of the employees, the residents’ safety, and the freedom of the team. These values are an important thing to consider while establishing the proposed change. The employees’ efficiency is required to record the desired outcomes because they are the main input in this project. The safety of the residents must be considered as they are the primary clients or customers for this facility. Freedom should be paramount for the project team to work successfully.
Role of Administrator
The administrator is the head of the facility and is thus entrusted with ensuring that everything related to the project is running as expected. He is in charge of making sure the facility can accommodate the needs of the patients and their families. He must convey any relevant information to the patients, staff, and other stakeholders involved in the improvement process. He is a leader in this project. He must make sure that DMAIC of the Six Sigma has been executed successfully to bring the desired outcomes to the assisted living facility (Chiarini, 2013). After all, the Sigma framework idea was his idea, and he must lead the rest of the team. He is accountable for ensuring the patient safety is not jeopardized and that the patients and their family, are gratified with the changes introduced. Furthermore, the administrator must make sure the goals of the Sigma model are achieved. Finally, he should establish some metrics to assess the success of the Sigma.
Final Decision-Making Authority
The ultimate decision in the facility would be made by the administrator and the owner. These individuals are the fittest when it comes to making the most critical decisions in this facility. The owner has the needed resources and an overview of the expected outcomes. On the other hand, the administrator has the knowledge and skills required to bring the desired change in the facility. Thus, the two individuals will eventually make any decision pertaining to the proposed change by working together. However, the employees must be included in the final decision to prevent a phenomenon of resistance to change.
Conclusion/Final Decision
The final decision in the case lies in the hands of the owner and the administrator. The latter made a perfect decision to choose an evidence-based model to implement the desired change. Implementing the model is important because it will benefit the patients, residents, and all the stakeholders in the facility. Sigma model has been used in other healthcare facilities to bring the changes meant to enhance the quality of care and patient outcomes. Thus, the decision to implement the Sigma framework was wise and feasible.
Ethical Principles Illustrate
The ethical principles that are evident in this case revolve around patient safety and the risks associated with the change. The administrator would identify some risks involved in the change process during the improvement and analyze phases. This way, the project team would be able to establish solutions to offset or mitigate these risks. Further, the principles of integrity and honesty were illustrated by the administrator’s willingness to use his knowledge for the patients’ wellbeing (Flite & Harman, 2013). Besides, the facility owner was guided by ethical principles like care and determination to enhance the overall patient experience. Finally, the patients’ freedom in the facility would be highly regarded, and this is one of the tenets of ethical principles illustrated in this case.
Summary of Learning
I have learned that the Six-Sigma model is an important tool for improving the quality of services offered by organizations (Chiarini, 2013). It is a quality and outcome enhancement tool as depicted by the administrator who is focused on improving the patient experience rather than taking away their freedom. The change has been portrayed as necessary to create an environment where the patients’ comfort and experience are prioritized. Also, the change promotes quality of care in a healthy, safe, and effective environment.
References
Flite, C. A., & Harman, L. B. (2013). Code of ethics: principles for ethical leadership. Perspectives in health information management, 10(Winter), 1d.
Chiarini, A. (2013). Building a Six Sigma model for the Italian public healthcare sector using grounded theory. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 14(4), 491-508.