Hospital Case Study
In any case study, it is important to gather information concerning the topic, or "case," and then ask three questions. The questions are, "What's going on right now?," "What can we do about it?," and "What can we do about it?"
In the case of Faith Community Hospital, there are several problems going on that can be divided into three categories:
Organizational process issues.
Ethics issues.
Communication system issues.
The first group of problems that we are having at the hospital fall under the heading of Organizational Processes. The current problems in this category include a lack of organization regarding the creation of a central concept of operation. Everyone from the CEO, to the doctors, pharmacists, and general staff seem confused about just what their role is in terms of ethical, belief-based, and "bottom-line" issues. The Mission Statement of the hospital is symbolic of this problem. It reads:
With the foundation and commitment of our spiritual heritage and values, our mission is to promote the health and well-being of the people in the communities we serve through a comprehensive continuum of services provided in collaboration with the partners who share the same vision and values.
Not only is this statement vague (as is the line between ethics and beliefs), but it points to the glaring hole in the hospital's ability to organize a process by which the "shared vision and values" might be identified and organized into a process of application.
The second problem area has to do with "ethical issues."
The Ethical issues that Faith Community Hospital is currently grappling with include:
Respect of patient decisions based on personal belief vs. oppositional law.
Hospital ethics/beliefs can sometimes clash with current law.
Patient beliefs can also clash with law.
Patient respect of hospital policy.
Patient may want service hospital does not condone.
Hospital may want to provide service/action patient does not accept.
Clash of staff vs. patient belief.
Staff may act out of belief against patient wishes.
Staff may refuse action based on belief.
Doctor responsibility to patient vs. doctor responsibility to hospital.
Doctor may put patient needs ahead of interest of hospital.
Doctor may put perceived needs of hospital before that of the patient.
Money/rules vs. patients, or patients vs. money/rules.
Staff may put financial needs of patient over that of the hospital.
Staff may put perceived needs of hospital over patient interest.
The third problem area is the issue of communication systems. The problems identified here include:
Muddled and complex mission statement.
Lack of communication across all levels of hospital staff.
Lack of understanding of "who is responsible for what."
High level of medical errors.
The second step in evaluating the case study of the hospital includes the proposal of reasonable and appropriate solutions to the identified problems. Based on the three main categories of problems the following is proposed:
Organizational process solutions.
Create a central system of organization. (Identify who is responsible for which issues.).
Clarify hospital mission statement. (The current statement is too vague, and symbolizes the problems in the hospital).
Ethical issues.
Create a protocol for dealing with situations when hospital ethics or beliefs clash with current law.
Create a protocol for dealing with situations when patient beliefs or ethics clash with current law.
Create a protocol for dealing with patient disagreement with hospital policy.
Create a protocol for situations when staff belief does not correspond with patient wishes.
Create a protocol for situations when staff belief does not correspond with hospital wishes.
Create a protocol for doctors when doctor/patient responsibility overtakes doctor/hospital responsibility.
Create a protocol for when patient's needs are in jeopardy due to hospital rules, regulations, or practices.
Communication issues:
Conduct all-member staff meetings more often than once every ten years.
Devise a way to communicate hospital policy to all staff members.
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.