Scenario Planning for Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships - Term Paper Example

 Scenario Planning for Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships The Administrator’s Initial Statement of What Is Being Implemented and Why The initial response from the administrator is that the proposed plan of introducing the new antibiotic is important because of both extrinsic and intrinsic reasons. The intrinsic reason is that the introduction of the antibiotic to surgical intervention would be very important in abating post-operation wound infections. The extrinsic reasons that necessitate the introduction of the antibiotic to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies’ (CMS) surgical interventions are that: the move is a government requirement; that there is evidence that shows significant benefit to patient care; and that the antibiotic will be very important in mitigating some of the post-operation worries. The antibiotic will also help CMS to save more money (28,000 dollars, annually). The administrator also acknowledges the drawbacks that come with the CMS using the antibiotic. The administration is for instance at home with the concerns that border on the lack of familiarity with the drug and the addition of a step to an already busy pre-operation nurses’ workload. However, the administrator’s initial statement and vouching for the antibiotic is premised on the antibiotic not having its pitfalls, but its benefits far outweighing its disadvantages. Stakeholder’s Background Thinking and First Responses and the Administrator’s Response Option Choice The stakeholder’s background thinking and first response is largely ambivalent. While there are those who readily welcome the introduction of the antibiotic in CMS’ surgical interventions, others are diametrically opposed to the same idea. For instance, the pharmacist is positive about the introduction of the antibiotic, because he has learnt about the drug. The financial analyst is likely to welcome this move since it will help save 28,000 dollars annually. The preoperational nurse and surgeon are not in support of the antibiotic. Although the nurse is interested in making her efforts patient-centered, she is worried that the move will add her other responsibilities at the preoperational stage. The surgeon on the other hand loathes government mandates and regards them as unnecessary since he has a generally positive track record for patients who have come from surgery. However, he lacks knowledge on the actual rate of post-surgery wound infections, due to his surgery patients. In this case, it is important that the administrator acknowledges these concerns since they are legitimate. Conversely, the administrator should consult the opposing team so as to place modalities on the introduction of the antibiotic. The modalities are to alleviate the setbacks that may shortchange the preoperational nurse and the surgeon. During these consultations, the administrator must make it clear that the introduction of the antibiotic is inevitable. How to Communicate With the Stakeholders According to Dewar (2010), the best way of communicating with these stakeholders in order to convince them to welcome the use of the antibiotic is a dialogue. The administration can initiate and facilitate the dialogue by welcoming the stakeholders to a meeting. Efforts must be made to ensure that the meeting remains a dialogue instead of a monologue. In this light, the preoperational nurse, the surgeon and the likeminded who have reservations towards the introduction of the preoperational antibiotic must state their standpoints and qualify them. From this angle, the administration and the stakeholders must work together to designate modalities that can mitigate the demerits that accost the use of the new antibiotic. On the same wavelength, it will be imperative that the administration expounds on the need to integrate the antibiotic to CMS’ surgical intervention. The administrator must emphasize the need to: safeguard the patient’s postsurgical wellbeing; comply with the government’s policy and embrace cost-effective medical technology. Although introducing the antibiotic is very sacrosanct in enhancing the patient’s postsurgical recovery and health and the hospital’s interests, yet its implications are far-reaching, and thereby making a dialogue mandatory. Because of this, emails, memos and news bulletins may not only be subservient, but also limited to calling the stakeholders to the meeting. Evaluation criteria needed There are several issues at stake that need evaluation. The need to evaluate the matter at hand is the probability of the new move bringing in more gains than losses. First, apart from the move being part of the government’s directive, the use of the new directive will help succor CMS’ financial obligations by helping the hospital save 28,000 dollars annually. Above all, the antibiotic drops down postsurgical wound infections by 47%. A critical evaluation shows that the gains emanating from the use of the antibiotic will override its drawbacks. For instance, the concerns that the antibiotic will add extra duties to the preoperational nurse’s busy schedule can be propitiated by having pre-prepared IVs early in advance. The 28,000 dollars annually saved by CMS can help shoulder the financial implications stemming from this arrangement. The surgeon will have to embrace the changes since he has never bothered to consider the actual rate of post-surgery wound infections on his surgery patients during his 30 years of treatment. Above all, the introduction of the new antibiotic remains paramount since it will make surgical intervention more patient-centered. This will override all the objections to the antibiotic. Timeframes Evaluation and implementation of the new antibiotic must be subjected to a specific timeframe if they are to have relevance. The time the antibiotic is being introduced must be specified and known to all the healthcare specialists and the rest of the administration. Likewise, the time for consultations between the stakeholders must be specified. It is best if communication and consultations are limited to 1 month, due to the gravity of the matter. The 1 month is enough to solicit ideas from the same, consult on modalities and to designate the best approach for the same. It is binding that specialists are also consulted in making the timeframe for the postsurgical wound’s healing known. CMS’s specialists will therefore be able to work with this timeframe when following up on the patient’s recovery. Conclusion: Other Items That May Be Valuable To Include It is important to widen the scope of the stakeholders who may be involved in this development. This is because the introduction of the antibiotic is likely to bring financial implications at the initial stage. Likewise, medical suppliers will have to be notified of the new requirements that are in place. This means that consultations will not have been wide enough if they preclude CMS’ investors, owner and suppliers. There will also be the need to facilitate communication between the CMS and the government to confirm compliance. In the event that the scope of consultation with the stakeholders is not widened, the introduction of the antibiotic may be unnecessarily resisted and defeated (Kennedy, Caselli and Berry, 2011). References Dewar, D. M. (2010). Essentials of Health Economics. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Kennedy, D. M., Caselli, R. J., Berry, L. L. (2011). A Roadmap for Improving Healthcare Service Quality. Journal of Healthcare Management, 56 (6), 385-400. Read More