Boost your Grades with us today!
DHA711 Week 3 Discussion and student response
Part 1 Discussion 1: George Halvorson declares that “health care is the epitome of a nonsystem” (2009, p. 2). Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following: • • • What is the basis for this declaration? What major factors are inhibiting health care in the United States from functioning as an integrated network of complex adaptive systems? Include your own experience, as well as 2 citations that align with or contradict your comments as sourced from peer-reviewed academic journals, industry publications, books, and/or other sources. Cite your sources using APA formatting. If you found contradicting information to what your experience tells you, explain why you agree or disagree with the research. Discussion 2 Week 3 Topic In Week 3, you will examine the attributes of a learning organization and how a learning organization’s leadership approach results in high performance teams within a health care organization. You will also begin planning your Gemba walk to identify opportunities for improvement in a health care organization with which you are familiar. Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following: • Reflecting on your readings in this week’s learning activities, which particular topic or issue resonates the most with you and why? What big questions remain unanswered? Part 2 Student Responses: Student Response 1: Student response 1: Review the classmates’ posts and respond to at least one in a minimum of 150 words. Explain why you agree or disagree. Then, share an example from your professional experience to support your assertions. Factors Inhibiting Health Care Systems The Basis of George Halvorson’s Declaration George Halvorson’s declaration that “health care is the epitome of a nonsystem” is based on the idea that the current system of healthcare delivery and financing in many countries, including the United States, is fragmented and lacks coordination. Halvorson, G. C. (2009) points out that there are many different stakeholders involved in the healthcare system, including patients, healthcare providers, insurance companies, government agencies, and pharmaceutical companies, each with their own goals, incentives, and priorities. This fragmentation can lead to inefficiencies, duplication of services, poor quality of care, and higher costs. Halvorson (2009) argues that a truly integrated and coordinated healthcare system would have better outcomes, as it would allow for a more streamlined approach to delivering care, reducing waste and duplicated services, and improving patient outcomes. He believes that a more coordinated system could be achieved through the use of information technology and data sharing, which would allow for better coordination between providers and improved patient outcomes. Factors inhibiting health care in the United States from functioning as an integrated network of complex adaptive systems There are several major factors that are inhibiting the U.S. healthcare system from functioning as an integrated network of complex adaptive systems, including lack of standardization, fragmentation, incentives, cultural barriers, and information technology infrastructure. In regards to fragmentation, the U.S. healthcare system is composed of a large number of separate entities, including hospitals, clinics, physician practices, payers, and others. This fragmentation makes it difficult to coordinate care and share information effectively. Lack of standardization-there is many different electronic health records (EHR) systems and other technologies in use in the U.S. healthcare system, which can make it difficult to share data and coordinate care between entities. Glover, Nissinboim, & Naveh, (2020) point out that hospitals seeking to establish innovation initiatives should guide their teams and departments on the desired type of innovation and offer support in terms of time allocation and management commitment, rather than becoming overwhelmed by the complexities and being unable to progress or exercise control. Also, the fee-for-service reimbursement model used in much of U.S. healthcare incentivizes providers to focus on volume rather than value. This can lead to a fragmented and inefficient system, where providers are not incentivized to work together to provide the best possible care. Equally, despite recent advancements, the IT infrastructure in many parts of the U.S. healthcare system is still not fully developed, which can make it difficult to share data and coordinate care effectively (Khan et al, 2018). Finally, there may be cultural barriers to collaboration and coordination between different entities in the U.S. healthcare system, such as a focus on competition rather than collaboration and a lack of trust between entities. These and other factors contribute to the U.S. healthcare system not functioning optimally as an integrated network of complex adaptive systems. However, there are efforts underway to address these issues and improve the system, such as the adoption of interoperable EHR systems, the shift towards value-based reimbursement, and the promotion of interdisciplinary teams. References Glover, W. J., Nissinboim, N., & Naveh, E. (2020). Examining innovation in hospital units: A complex adaptive systems approach. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1). doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05403-2 Halvorson, G. C. (2009). Health care will not reform itself. Taylor and Francis. Khan, S., Vandermorris, A., Shepherd, J., Begun, J. W., Lanham, H. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Berta, W. (2018). Embracing uncertainty, managing complexity: Applying complexity thinking principles to transformation efforts in healthcare systems. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1). doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2994-0 Student Response 2: Student response 1: Review the classmates’ posts and respond to at least one in a minimum of 150 words. Explain why you agree or disagree. Then, share an example from your professional experience to support your assertions. I have the title of a leader in my healthcare organization. Therefore, I was drawn to reading “The Dawn of System Leadership.” What resonated with me is Nelson Mandela’s embodying the ancient understanding of leadership; the Indo-European root of “to lead,” leith, literally means to step across a threshold—and to let go of whatever might limit stepping forward (Senge et al., 2015). Mandela took a huge step forward by implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One would think he would use his power to seek revenge on those that oppressed him and his fellow countrymen and women. Instead, he brought together those who had suffered profound losses with those whose actions led to those losses to face one another, tell their truths, forgive, and move on; it was not only a profound gesture of civilization but also a cauldron for creating collective leadership (Senge et al.,2015). If Mandela were here today, he would be highly regarded as a system leader. As Senge et al. (2015) stated, system leaders work to create a space where people living with the problem can come together to tell the truth, think more deeply about what is happening, explore options beyond popular thinking, and search for higher leverage changes through progressive cycles of action and reflection and learning over time. Knowing that there are no easy answers to genuinely complex problems, system leaders cultivate the conditions wherein collective wisdom emerges over time through a ripening process that gradually brings about new ways of thinking, acting, and being (Gilson & Agyepong 2018). Learning to adopt the practice of becoming a system leader will not occur overnight. Strengthening health leadership is a system-wide reform requiring individual, team, and system-level intervention (Gilson & Agyepong 2018). The big question still needs to be answered: Why do healthcare leaders lack the discipline to create space for change? References: Gilson, L., & Agyepong, I. A. (2018). Strengthening health system leadership for better governance: what does it take? Health Policy and Planning, 33(suppl_2), ii1ii4. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czy052 Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The dawn of system leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 13(1), 27-33. https://networkpeninsula.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/The_Dawn_of_System_Leadership-1.pdf