Integration of Personal Knowledge in Problem Solving, Critical Thinking to Solve the Workplace Problems in Nursing - Case Study Example

Workplace Conflict Student’s name Course name + code Tutor’s name Institution Date of submission Introduction Every aspect of human life is prone to violence of any kind. Places where people gather for a common goal usually comprise of people with diverse opinions. Misunderstandings could arise between individuals with differing opinions about something or having a common interest in something. Workplaces experience violence as a result of misunderstandings between workers themselves or between workers and their seniors. Workplace violence may be defined as a violent act directed towards a person on duty that may involve any threatening behavior, physical assault or verbal abuse occurring in a work setting (Swanson 2014). In the nursing fraternity, workplace violence is no surprise despite the sensitivity of the practice in human life. In my career as a nurse, I have witnessed incidences involving conflict between the nurses themselves or with the doctors and other senior people. I always remember one workplace conflict that involved me and Dr Johnston, a physician in the emergency department, while working at Midsize Hospital. Case I personally knew Dr Johnston to be a difficult person to deal with. He was always an angry and rude man to both the staff and the patients. His anger was thought to have generated ten years ago when he lost his daughter though a tragic road accident that was caused by a drunk driver. One Friday evening, I was working in trauma room 2 and needed to obtain a piece of equipment in trauma room 3. The door to room 3 was shut as Dr Johnston was attending to a patient in the room. I excused myself, knocked the door and opened it slowly requesting the equipment form the doctor, who was just a few meters from the patients coach. Suddenly, he walked to the door and pushed it back. I could not imagine that such a thing would happen to me in that context. The door, with great impact, hit my face, breaking my wire rim glasses. I was left confused, trying to pick the pieces of glasses that scattered all over the corridors. The hospital was at that time still busy with patients flocking in. I tried not letting the people around to know whether anything unusual had happened. I rushed in the wash rooms which were just a few meters with an aim to view myself in the mirrors for any cuts in my face. This meant that my patient in the next room was not being attended to. I saw some bruises on the left side of the nose caused by the broken glasses. I could feel some itches on my face but rushed back to check on my innocent patient who was quietly waiting my attendance. It was evening and my day shift was almost over. But following the incident, I chose to remain behind and express my concerns about the incident. I thank my strong conscience, backed by the nursing codes of conduct that I did not plan to confront Dr Johnston for the incident that had happened. In the closure of my long working day, I rushed to the head of the emergency department for the hospital, Dr. Jims who was almost leaving for home but had to plead him to listen to my case. I was surprised to learn that Dr Jims was fully aware of Dr Johnston conduct but had never presented the case to the senior management of the hospital. Furthermore, this was not the only incident that involved Dr Johnston to cause injuries to their fellow workmates. I insisted that Dr Jims should present the case to the senior management of the company. To his concern, he agreed to do so the following morning and that he would request all the parties to be present. I felt that the situation needed a conflict resolution process to create a peaceful coexistence between Dr Johnston and all the people that have rubbed shoulder with him. The following morning I was there, anxiously waiting for all the parties to arrive for the situation to get solved and return to normalcy. I was one of the youngest victims and participants in the case but knew my presence was not just as a victim but an arbitrator too. I knew I was going to bring important ideas into the conflict that would help solve the situation. I definitely knew that my background nursing principles would find place in solving the brewing conflicts between the doctor and all the victims of his bad conducts. The first principle of respecting the personal space of other people was going to be very instrumental in leading to the solution of the problem. Personal space is the area around us that we consider an extension of ourselves (Swanson 2014). It may also be regarded as the amount of space that individuals require to feel comfortable (Blando et al 2014). This could be a possibility that can help solve the scenario. I knew that all the victims of Dr Johnston acts are lacking the personal space while working with the doctor. The fact that these incidents have never been reported led to the understanding that the situation creates anxiety amongst the victims since there was nobody to look into their plight and rescue them. Another important aspect that would help the situation solved was the critical thinking aspects of problem solving. Critical thinking is the ability to come up with a decisive decision in a situation that in challenging (El Ghaziri 2013). That early morning, all the victims of Dr Johnston were summoned and we were all in the medical director’s room. Despite being assaulted, I did not take it personal even at that moment since emotions cannot lead to solution of a problem. It is advisable that people should try not to judge the feelings of other people before we carefully consult with them about their status. It was alleged that the doctor might be acting in such a way because of trauma resulting from the death of his daughter, but this could not be justified until there is proper discussion between the doctor and the other participants. It is advisable that individuals try and identify first the real reason for a particular behavior. Even at the centre of an angry trade, there is usually useful information that other people can gain about what the person is feeling. People should try to listen for the real message from the person whose conduct is unpredictable and difficult to deal with (McPhaul, London & Lipscomb 2013). Having such problem solving techniques, it was time to make sure that I put them into practice not only for my sake, but also for the sake of all the victims of the case. At this time, the hospital director was the chair of the meeting that was expected to create a peaceful work environment for all the nurses and the doctors. The director said that the information he had received about Dr Johnston’s conduct indicated that he disrespected his nurses and has severally assaulted them. To his defense, the doctor said that he has a problem with his temper and that his blood pressure rises quickly whenever he sees things going out of order. He, therefore, claimed that his acts were not intentional. On the other hand, the victims did not want to understand the doctor’s plea and demanded he be punished for his acts. A hot exchange of words ensued between the other victims and the doctor and I felt that I have to come in and salvage the situation. I addressed the issue by making them to understand that the goal of problem solving is defeating the problem and not the person. Providing primary intervention requires that the arbitrators create calmness to allow sufficient personal space between the aggressors. It also requires that the arbitrator convey a picture that indicates that he will gain control of the behavior without aggression (Mohr et al. 2011). The verbal exchange that I demanded from the victims was that which connote caring and authority. The situation here needs that any form of anger is diffused so that reasoning takes its course to help solve the problem. I requested to involve everyone at a time to air their views about the problem so that we can arrive at a consensus on how team work can be adopted for the betterment of the patients. Giving room for everybody to talk relieves them of the anger they store in their hearts for being denied an opportunity to express their feelings (Needham, OBrien-Pallas & Tucker 2008). It was at this time that I got to realize that everyone might be having their own problems but in different ways. The situation required not only the controversial doctor to watch his habits but also the complainants to examine their deeds. Taking all the people as equal in such a situation reduces the violent nature of the victims and the accused. This is because in very rare cases can it be found that people accept their wrongs and that whenever the mediator tries to side with a certain group, the problem continues to worsen (Pekar & Gillespie 2013). This was a great step towards solving the conflict, but the process would be more successful if engaged with proper theories of communication to enable a complete solution to the problem. Theories Lazarus and Folkman’s Theory of Coping This is one of the theories that clearly fit into this scenario of which I found useful in dealing with the situation in place. In this theory, Lazarus describe the coping process as constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Ziegler 2005). The purpose of the process of coping is to manage the problem and controlling the emotion elicited by the problem. Coping involves primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and reappraisal. These are the steps that are involved when an individual is making judgment concerning the degree of threat created by the stressor and also the resources available in managing the stressor (Papa & Venella 2013). In my situation, emotions seemed to have contributed greatly to the situation as the doctor was emotional in the act. This theory gave me the idea that controlling the emotion of the doctor was more important in preventing further problems that may occur as a result of his emotions. In this case, coping was very vital as dealing with the doctor require one to have the ability to change with the emotions of the doctor. In the incident, I chose not to react to the emotions of the doctor so as to avoid the situation to turn worse. I pleaded that those who are past victims of the doctor’s case maintain their reaction as such since none had ever reacted to the annoying situation of the doctor. The behavior selected to manage the problem and its associated emotions depends on the results of the appraisal process and the available resources. Aguilera’s Theory of Crisis Intervention This theory considers how a state of psychological disequilibrium is precipitated and the processes through which the equilibrium is regained the crisis evolves. The state of psychological equilibrium can be seen as continuously being threatened by stressors. This state of equilibrium can always be maintained through a problem solving process and an effective utilization of coping skills (Ziegler 2005). This theory offers an explanation of unhealthy behavior shown by Dr Johnston; it stands out to be a good ideological perspective of solving the problem. These require individuals to agree that the problem can arrive at its solution using the available coping skills to make the situation equilibrium. The perception that one would not be able to arrive at a solution to a certain problem will bring about the feeling of anxiety, fear, guilt, shame and helplessness. I found this theory very important in trying to bring the situation to equilibrium where parties in the conflict can reach a healthy decision. Lindeman’s Grief Theory This is another theory that clearly relates to the situation I faced and was helpful in dealing with the situation. This theory states that a person experiencing acute grief displays a syndrome of common behaviors. Such kind of behaviors are said to be classified into hostile reactions, guild, somatic distress and preoccupation with the image of the deceased. The theorist suggests that such behaviors can be solved through grief work which involves readjustment of an individual to the environment in which the deceased is missing and the formation of new relationships (Ziegler 2005). In this particular case, Dr Johnston is said to be traumatized about the death of his daughter ten years ago. He seems to have not readjusted into the environment of his missing daughter and even keeps himself away from making new relationships (Trossman 2010). The doctor would still require psychological help to readjust to the environment of his missing daughter and be encouraged to make friendship with people at his home and in the work environment. This theory will find its usefulness after the problem is solved since it will greatly heal the continuity of good work relationship between the doctor and the other nurses and doctors. Conclusion The integration of personal knowledge in problem solving, critical thinking and the theories above were very helpful in the discussion to solve the workplace problems that involved the controversial doctor. I appreciate the fact that my ideas were taken serious in the discussion which yielded fruits in the end. I learned that people can do mistakes and end up blaming others instead of examining themselves first. Whenever a mistake is dome, it is important that both parities find the root cause of the mistake or involve a third party to see where the problem might have resulted from (Ryan Hosken 2013). The success of the situation was arrived at because both sides in controversy were able were made to agree that they all could have messed in the situation. At the same time, communication is very essential in any work place since the cause of the problem could have been lack of communication as the victims of the doctors’ assault took no action. Organizational communication is, therefore, very important for a peaceful work environment. Bibliography Blando, J., Ridenour, M., Hartley, D., & Casteel, C 2013, Barriers to Effective Implementation of Programs for the Prevention of Workplace Violence in Hospitals. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, vol. 20, no. 1. El Ghaziri, M 2013, Understanding the Impact of Coworker Conflict in an Unionized US Public Sector Workforce and Comparative Psychometric Review of the Negative Act Questionnaire McPhaul, K., London, M., & Lipscomb, J 2013, A framework for translating workplace violence intervention research into evidence-based programs. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, vol. 18, 1. Mohr, DC, Warren, N., Hodgson, MJ, & Drummond, DJ 2011, Assault rates and implementation of a workplace violence prevention program in the Veterans Health Care Administration. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 53, no. 5, pp.511-516. Needham, K., OBrien-Pallas, M., & Tucker, O 2008, Workplace Violence in the Health Sector Publisher KAVANAH, The Netherlands. Pekar, BC, & Gillespie, GL 2013, Workplace violence: A call for action. Journal of Hospital Administration, vol. 3, no. 1, p34. Papa, A, & Venella, J 2013, Workplace violence in healthcare: strategies for advocacy. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, vol. 18, 1 Ryan Hosken, ND 2013, Workplace Hostility and Nurses’ Perceptions of the Value of Interventions and Supportive Structures Swanson, K 2014, The Emergency Nurse as Crime Victim: Workplace Violence Contributors, Consequences, and Reporting Behavior. Northcentral University Trossman, S 2010, Not'part of the job'. Nurses seek an end to workplace violence. American nurse, The, 42, no. 6, pp.1-6. Ziegler, SM, 2005, Theory-Directed Nursing Practice: Second Edition. Springer Publishing Company   Read More