Category: Occupational safety and Health administration

Original instructions 
Discuss a problem your current or former organization (pseudonyms are okay) solved or a suboptimal decision the organization made because the frame was incorrect. Describe the outcome(s) that resulted due to the incorrect framing. What barriers to brilliant decision making do you believe impacted the organization and why? Describe how you would have framed the problem and what mapping technique you would have used. NOTE: You do NOT have to create the mapping technique. You only have to explain why you chose it.
Students are reminded to follow the discussion board guidelines and rubric criteria as outlined below:
Respond to the following discussion post adding value to the conversation and each post should consist of 150 words minimum 
Claudette post 
In the context of organizational problem-solving and decision-making, inaccurate framing can, indeed, result in undesirable choices and consequences. TechGenix, a fictitious company, as an instance, which experienced a significant drop in employee productivity. A thorough performance monitoring system was put in place as a result of the first conceptualization of the problem, which was that staff were not motivated enough. But this strategy did nothing but make people more stressed out and less productive. Low morale and a high turnover rate were the results, which suggests that the problem was not properly defined.  A more effective framing of the problem would have involved a broader perspective, taking into account factors like work environment, job design, and employee well-being (Olson et al., 2022).
I would have chosen to use a cross-functional process map to frame the problem, which would allow for a visualization of the workflow across different departments, identifying obstacles and areas of stress that could be contributing to the drop in productivity (Olson et al., 2022). It would also highlight the transitions between departments, which are particularly important in this situation. Confirmation bias, where the management only considered evidence that supported their initial assumption, and overconfidence, assuming they already had the right solution (Dierickx, 2020)
Instead of blaming the problem only on low employee motivation, the company might have used a cross-functional process map to pinpoint particular workflow areas that needed to be improved, such distributing responsibilities or simplifying communication (Dierickx, 2020). This strategy probably would have produced more focused and efficient solutions, raising output and raising employee satisfaction.  The secret to effectively framing a problem is to be receptive to other viewpoints and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the circumstance before drawing any judgments (Olson et al., 2022). To determine the genuine nature of the issue at hand, it is important to pose the appropriate questions and be prepared to challenge presumptions.
References
Olson, J. R., McLaughlin, D. B., Sharma, L.  (2022). Healthcare Operations Management, 4th Edition.
Dierickx, C. (2020, August 10). What leaders need to do to interrupt the confirmation bias. Forbes.Retrieved from https://constancedierickx.com/how-leaders-can-interrupt-the-confirmation-bias/
Danielle post 
The healthcare field is a constant evolving and changing environment in order to help reduce barriers and improve patient care. Revisions in the process due to incorrect framework or an attempt to improve the framework that is already in place. St. Mary’s Medical Center has a daily huddle meeting at noon to go over each patient on the unit and the barriers for remaining hospitalized. The idea of a huddle is to address barriers is essential and helps with communication throughout the multidisciplinary team. However, the only team members at huddle were the nurses, charge nurse and case managers. The base idea of a daily huddle is important but there was previously very little communication with the remaining multidisciplinary team. Research shows “Nurses and physicians collaborating between departments determined the plan of action for the day to ensure efficient and timely care was provided to all pediatric patients within the hospital and those needing to be transferred from other facilities.” (McBeth et al., 2017) Due to the incorrect framing the outcomes of the huddle resulted in continued lack of communication between the multidisciplinary team.
To improve upon the idea of huddle, hospital leadership revisited huddle and made it mandatory for all members of the multidisciplinary team to be involved. Hospitalists, nurses, charge nurses, nurse managers, case managers and a representative from administration were all in attendance to address each patient and their barriers to discharge to the appropriate next level of care. The barriers to brilliant decision making that impacted St. Mary’s Medical Center as an organization is the members in attendance at huddle. If the hospitalist team was not in attendance there was not a real-time accurate report of patient barriers for discharge. Alternate barriers included communication within the multidisciplinary team. Research has shown “Strong and committed leadership is a key contributory factor is sustaining commitment to the huddle.” (Montague et al., 2019)
If I was employed in a hospital leadership position and involved in the improvement of huddle at St. Mary’s Medical Center, I would have implemented more research prior to interventions. First, I would’ve visited different units of the hospital and watched as huddle was performed. I would have interviewed nurses, charge nurses and case management to gather a consensus of what is and is not working. After that, I would have asked the staff what they would find more helpful from the huddle meetings. I would have used the mapping technique of a process flow chart to help with visualization of the huddle process. A process flowchart would be beneficial to visual how huddle meeting can have all members of the multidisciplinary team engage and help with hand-off between different team members. Therefore, the process flowchart would show a visual representation of the huddle process from start to finish.
References
McBeth, C. L., Durbin-Johnson, B., & Siegel, E. O. (2017). Interprofessional Huddle: One Children’s Hospital’s Approach to Improving Patient Flow. Pediatric Nursing, 43(2), 71–95.
Montague, J., Crosswaite, K., Lamming, L., Cracknell, A., Lovatt, A., & Mohammed, M. A. (2019). Sustaining the commitment to patient safety huddles: insights from eight acute hospital ward teams. British Journal of Nursing, 28(20), 1316–1324. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2019.28.20.1316

write a 1,000-word final reflection on an ethical health issue of their choice.
Moral, Medical, Political, cultural issues.
Rubric
Thesis
Reflection has a clear thesis statement that follows throughout the entire piece.
Dilema
Moral and/or ethical dilemma(s) is clearly defined and explained.
An understanding, analysis, and evaluation of key medical ethical concepts is demonstrated.
Class theme
Reflection analyzes dilemma in terms of class themes (like “local moral worlds”).
Evidence
Reflection uses at least 2 sources from class readings, one of which must be Moral Laboratories. ( I can provide all the reading) 
Reflection uses at least 3 academic or scholarly sources from outside of class readings.
Reflection is properly cited according to the Chicago Manual of Style-Author Date format.
Writing
Includes appropriate organizational pattern and a writing quality based on recommendations given throughout the term by the professor and teaching assistant.
Course Schedule and Readings
Day 1, June 18: Medical Anthropology, Health, Healing, and Ethics
Bioethics and Medical Anthropology
Harris, John. 2001. “Introduction: The Scope and Importance of Bioethics” in John Harris, ed. Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. 
Marshall, Patricia. 1992. “Anthropology and Bioethics.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 6(1): 49–73. 
Sargent, Carolyn and Carolyn Smith-Morris. 2006. “Questioning our Principles: Anthropological Contributions to Ethical Dilemmas in Clinical Practice.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15(2): 123–134. 
Day 2, June 19: Power/Knowledge 
Health Technology
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 6 and Conclusion. 
Berk, Elizabeth. 2018. “A Kind of Disassembled and Reassembled, Post-Modern, Personal and Technical Self: Agency and the Insulin Pump.” 
Inhorn, Marcia. 2016. “Religion and Reproductive Technologies.” In Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology, edited by Peter Brown and Svea Closser. New York: Routledge. 274-276. 
Stahl, Devan. 2018. Imaging and Imagining Illness: Becoming Whole in a Broken Body. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. Chapter 1. 
Day 3, June 20: Pharma
Petryna, Adriana, Arthur Kleinman, and Andrew Lakoff. 2006. Global Pharmaceuticals: Ethics, Markets, Practices. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Chapters 2 and 9 (“Globalizing Human Subjects Research” and “Treating AIDS”). 
Day 4, June 21: Bioethics and Science and Technology Studies 
Hamdy, Sherine. 2013. “Not Quite Dead: Why Egyptian Doctors Refuse the Diagnosis of Death by Neurological Criteria.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34(2): 147–160. 
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2000. “The Global Traffic in Human Organs.” Current Anthropology 41(2): 191–224. 
Day 5, June 24: Human Subjects Research 
Philippe Bourgois. 1999. “Theory, Method, and Power in Drug and HIV-Prevention Research: A Participant-Observer’s Critique.” Substance Use and Misuse 34(14): 2155-2172. 
Benatar, Soloman. 2001. “Justice and Medical Research: A Global Perspective.” Bioethics 15(4): 333-340.
Day 6, June 25: Disaster Ethics
Fink, Sheri. 2009. “The Deadly Choices at Memorial.” The New York Times Magazine. 
Day 7, June 26: Moral Laboratories 
Mattingly, Cheryl. 2014. Moral Laboratories: Family Peril and the Struggle for a Good Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapters 1 and 3. 
Day 8, June 27: Moral Laboratories
Mattingly, Cheryl. 2014. Moral Laboratories: Family Peril and the Struggle for a Good Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapters 5 and 7. 
Day 9, June 28: Moral Laboratories
Mattingly, Cheryl. 2014. Moral Laboratories: Family Peril and the Struggle for a Good Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 8. 

Reflect on the weekly assignments completed throughout the course regarding the selection, integration, and implementation of new technology.
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in which you:
Examine strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of the new technology and system. Answer the following questions:
How can you determine if it is the right technology to use?
How can you determine if it integrates well with existing technology?
How can you determine if the system is intuitive or easy to use for the users?
How can you determine the cost and benefits of the technology and system?
Explain your role and responsibilities as a manager in the evaluation of technology in health care.
Identify data sources used to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented technology.
Cite at least 2 peer-reviewed or similar references to support your paper.
Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.

Read the following article: Ostergren, D., Solop, F.I, & Hagen, K.K. (2005). National park service fees: Value for the money or a barrier to visitation? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23, 1.  Answer the following questions in essay format (introduction, supporting paragraphs, conclusion). The paper should be at least 5 pages in length:
Do visitors prefer lower entrance fees with additional fees for the services and activities? Explain.
Do people prefer entrance fees to remain with the park or be directed to the US Treasury? Explain.
How do people perceive the entrance fee paid in comparison with the benefits they receive?
How do entrance fees limit visitation to national parks? In your opinion, should they be eliminated, raised, or lowered? Explain.

A)Think about your own grant proposal area of need for the Request For Proposal. 
What are examples of independent, dependent, intervening/mediating, moderating, control and confounding variables?
Consider the proposed grant proposal project you are developing. How will you incorporate theory 
into your project? Remember the use of theory is different for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed 
methods approaches.
How is social science theory used in research?
What is an example of how participatory social justice theory is used in mixed methods research?
B)Problem Statement – Purpose of the Study.
The submission should follow the instructions provided on the Grant Proposal (RFP), include the project
problem statement and the purpose of the study.

Make a 5 slide presenation summerizing this analysis. 
Article used is linked https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/epdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.01061(although not needed just as a reference). Speakernotes as well please. 
make powerpoint interesting please. 
MAKE SURE THIS STRUCTURE IS FOLLOWED 
Identify the statement of the problem within the article. 
Describe the most significant outcomes of the study. 
Describe the article’s recommendations and
4. Assess the article’s effectiveness from the perspective of a healthcare services administrator /leader.
analyis 
onducting a comprehensive evaluation of the study’s methodology, results, and conclusions.
This study investigates the selective participation of ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) in response to the regional spending benchmarks during the period between 2013 to 2019. The study focused on three areas. First, the strength of the MSSP to adjust benchmarks for regional efficiency. This was done by measuring the difference between providers’ average spending and average spending in the region where the provider is located. Secondly, the study observed how the number of ACOs changed over time in response to the MSSP incentives. Lastly, the study analyzed certain subgroups that had stronger selective participation in MSSP.
Overall, the study found that participation in the MSSP consisted of lower-spending ACOs while high-spending ACOs left the increasingly left the program. The disproportionate participation of low spending providers demonstrates the need for benchmarking reforms. 
– Checking for consistency between the study’s objectives, research questions, and data analysis.
The objective of the study was to analyze how changes in benchmarking methods influences participation of ACOs in the MSSP. The study objectives were answered through the research methods and data analysis. The data demonstrated trends in participation by observing the shift over time. The study was able to effectively analyze ACO participation in MSSP in order to identify what factors incentivize providers to selectively participate. 
– Verifying the accuracy of the statistical analysis performed by the primary reviewer.
The study utilizes a large amount of data over an extensive period of time which helps ensure the validity by providing a comprehensive view of the program. However, the lack of a control group limits the ability of the study to attribute changes in ACO participation to regional benchmarks. The data is reliable as it observes patterns in ACO participation before and after the introduction of regional benchmarks. The analysis of ACO behavior and implications for policy change are supported by the trends in the data.
– Assessing the study’s contribution to the existing knowledge in health services administration.
By showing how regional adjustments in benchmarks encouraged participation from lower spending ACOs, this demonstrates how policy changes can affect provider behaviors and program outcomes. The article enhances overall understanding of how financial incentives and policy improvements in benchmarking can improve provider participation in value-based care programs. This helps provide further insight into future research and policy development. 
– Providing additional insights or alternative perspectives regarding the study’s findings and implications.
The study’s findings demonstrate that higher-spending ACOs continue to exit the MSSP leaving a higher concentration of lower spending AOCs. However, this does not reflect the healthcare landscape. Diverse participation is important for the long-term sustainability of the program. 
– Identifying potential ethical concerns or conflicts of interest that should be addressed.
The study raises ethical concerns about equitable access to care and whether the program favors wealthier populations. The program also incentivizes participation through financial advantages rather than improvements in care quality. The focus on lowering costs can lead providers to neglect the objective to focus on enhancing care quality. The selective participation by benchmarking changes may lead to reduced participation by ACOs that serve at-risk populations such as minorities which can increase health disparities.  
Conflicts of interest may exist if policymakers or stakeholders involved have ties to the ACOs and benefit financially from benchmarking changes. This demonstrates the need for transparency in the policymaking process to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain fairness.
– Evaluating the study’s methodology, including the study design, sample size, data collection methods, and analysis techniques.
The study utilizes a longitudinal analysis of MSSP participation from 2013 to 2019. The study collected a random 20% sample of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. The sample included 528 ACOs that entered the MSSP from 2012 to 2016 before benchmark regionalization and 285 that entered from 2017 to 2019 after benchmark regionalization. The study took into account several different analysis techniques including subgroup analysis, compositional changes over time, sensitivity analysis, and selection incentives. 
– Assessing the validity and reliability of the study’s findings by examining the statistical analysis and the use of appropriate statistical tests.
I couldn’t find much information on this. Andrea, can you please look into this and see if you can answer this part? 
– Analyzing the study’s limitations and potential biases that may affect the generalizability of the results.
One limitation of the study was the lack of a control group. Instead of an official control group, the study used pre-post comparisons of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) participation patterns. Due to this limitation, baseline spending changes and other compositional changes cannot be definitively attributed to benchmarking changes. Another limitation of the study was the differing reasons why lower and higher-spending providers participated or chose not to participate in MSSP. The decisions of higher-spending providers in the MSSP were disproportionately influenced by changes in Medicare or the provider markets, whereas lower-spending providers were more significantly influenced by the benchmarks. 
– Identifying gaps or inconsistencies in the study and suggesting potential improvements or further research areas.
The study carried out several subgroup analyses including beneficiary distribution, ACO size, and convener organizations. To improve the study, the researchers could have investigated other relevant factors in their subgroup analyses, like provider specialty and the geographic location of ACOs.
– Providing constructive feedback and recommendations to enhance the overall quality of the research study.
The study’s complex nature and technical language made it challenging for the average reader to understand the study methods, analysis, and discussion. Simplifying the language of the study would allow readers to effectively digest the valuable information provided and the conclusions drawn. The study also followed 528 pre-benchmark regionalization ACOs and 285 post-benchmark regionalization ACOs. Gathering more post-benchmark regionalization ACOs could have enriched the results of the study, providing more information on the impact of MSSP and policy change on ACOs

Search the CSU Online Library, and locate two peer-reviewed or academic articles regarding ergonomics-related concerns focusing on one of the following demographics:
the aging workforce,
women in the workforce, or
obese workers in the workforce.
Provide a summary for each article. For each article, identify the premise and significant points in support of the premise.
Conclude with an explanation of the extent to which the topic is interesting to you and if you think it would make a good topic for a doctoral project.
Your assignment should be between two-to-three pages in length, not counting the title page and references page.
Adhere to APA Style when constructing this assignment, including in-text citations and references for all sources that are used. Please note that no abstract is needed.

Exam Content
Your business operations skill is important for being able to identify risks associated with various financing options and projects for capital projects that fund growth, purchase equipment and inventory, hire additional staff, and build new facilities.
Scenario
You have been promoted to CFO at your hospital. The hospital’s CEO has requested that you present an evaluation of budgetary options for future purchases based on industry competition to the board of directors. In the presentation, focus on budgetary financing strategies and solutions in the operations of the hospital.
Preparation
If you address nursing shortage, supply-chain disruption, or outsourcing in your assessment deliverable presentation, review and consider using the following articles from the “Summative Assessment: Business Operations Presentation” section in the Week 5 University Library as the primary resources for your presentation.
Nursing shortage topic resource: “As COVID-19 Worsens Nursing Shortage, Madison Hospitals, Schools Step Up”
Supply-chain disruption topic resource: “Inflation Rattles Hospital Supply Chain and Labor Pool With no End in Sight”
Outsourcing topic resource: “Research and Markets Adds Report: Medical Billing Outsourcing Market” and “The Good, the Bad and the Outsourced”
Assessment Deliverable
Create a 12- to 15-slide Microsoft PowerPoint® presentation in which you:
Evaluate effective financial options for outsourcing operations of key departments, such as information systems, medical billing, and human resources (HR).
Evaluate how you would implement just-in-time inventory management (e.g., in the OR, central sterile supply, or pharmacy departments) to optimize inventory management.
Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using a flexible budget to meet the organization’s staffing needs.
Describe the decision-making factors when determining whether to lease or buy equipment (e.g., Should I buy or lease an MRI or CT scan?).
Describe the effect of financing strategies on the cost of capital.
Identify and describe the benefits and risks of debt financing (e.g., how to manage working capital through accounts payable).
Formatting Requirements
Include the following in your presentation:
Detailed speaker notes for each slide
Appropriate images or other multimedia
A references slide
Cite any sources, images, and multimedia included in your presentation.
Format citations and references according to APA guidelines.

For this assignment, refer to the Leadership Values and Ethics article here: 
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/leadership-values-and-workplace-ethics-1918615. 
Consider what your list of personal leadership values would be from this resource. Select at
least five values, but no more than 10. 
Prepare a 1-2 page double-spaced paper, in which you use critical thinking skills to address the
following areas: 
Briefly describe in a paragraph why leadership values are important to your career as a
health care professional. Explain how your values shape your ethics. 
Identify and define the 5-10 values you selected and compare them to your personal values.
Explain why each value is important to you in a few sentences. 
Explain why your leadership values could impact the standards of care for individuals,
families, and communities. Illustrate this with a hypothetical example or a real example from
your workplace. 
Examine why ethics and integrity are important for a health care administrator. Use one
library source to support your ideas. Be sure to reference the source at the end of your
paper and include an in-text citation in the body of the paper.

elect one of the STIs covered in the course and briefly describe the basic epidemiology, physiology, and microbiology of the causative organism. This section should make up about 20-25% of your paper. The bulk of the paper (50-60%) should be about the new or emerging strategy to prevent, monitor, control, test, or treat that STI. Critically describe the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy. Close the paper with suggestions to further improve the prevention, monitoring, control, management, or treatment of that STI. This section should make up about 20-25% of your paper