Reasons Change Is Difficult Within Healthcare Setting Research Papers Example

Abstract

Change in health care setting is intrinsically an excellent effort as well as move to ensure better services for patients are rendered and must always be commended. Nevertheless, change is never easy to achieve in whichever organization or department, be it in managed care, patient characteristics, or in pay for quality. Despite such challenges, some instances of real, demonstrable, as well as long-term change initiates in health care setting have been achieved. The effectiveness of change implementation and initiatives are always patchy and inconsistent. This paper discusses reasons change is difficult within healthcare setting be it in managed care, patient characteristics, or in pay for quality. Some of the identified factors impeding change include inadequate leadership support, lack of accountability, hesitancy to invest resources or time, skepticism or resistance from health caregivers, and inadequate internal resources for change initiatives. In addition, factors like unclear tactics or approaches for sustaining long-term outcomes, unseen cultural barriers, and lack of realignment in thinking among change agents are discussed.

Research indicates that approximately 60-80% of change initiatives fail (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 519). Many issues or factors have affected the spread as well as speed of change within healthcare setting. Failures to achieve change in healthcare setting may be traced to skepticism, resistance, or cultural barriers among healthcare givers or patients. Change in health care setting is met with some degree of dissent. Achieving change is difficult, as there are more often than not pockets of resistance all over the institution. While some people within the organization may clearly recognize the need for change, other are quite contented without change or status quo. Some individuals feel the proposed change initiatives infringe on their areas of operations or threaten to alter the manner they always execute their duties. Some are skeptical since they are acclimatized or have experienced instances where prior change initiatives, which were finally disposed of when they never produced the anticipated results (Scott 18). Change in health care setting has been difficult because those initiating changes fail to take time demonstrating the reason their initiatives are distinct. There should be concentration on delivering some fast, measurable win, which is not always the case. There is, more often than not, lack to seek experienced outside experts to assist overcome resistance, create a plan for attaining set goals, and uncover real concerns involved in change initiatives. Issues of the staff skepticism, cultural complacency, or resistance cut across on change initiatives on managed care, client characteristics, or pay for quality.
The most significant, but always least well addressed, difficulties in change is to convince healthcare givers that there exist real issues that can only be tackled through change. Healthcare workers can argue or insist that the issues being targeted by the change is not a challenge. Instead, that there exist concerns, which are better addressed before the proposed change (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 148). Research indicates examples or instances where healthcare workers argue that the provided service is the best. Attempts to convince healthcare workers that are performing exemplary to change from what they execute well are probably met with futility or resistance leading to failure in change within healthcare setting. Those planning as well as designing change are not always keen to target issues that are probably accepted as real or that the proposed change will provide relative gain in comparison to status quo (Scott 19). Change strategies must always involve healthcare workers in describing what they believe can improve healthcare services because they can identify problems that should be fixed. Change has always failed because healthcare workers are not involved in need assessment for change.
Ineffective communication within the organization can hamper change. There has been a lack of strong inclusive communication approach to assist avoids the misunderstanding, which may ultimately frustrate the best-laid plans of change (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 146). There are always failures to begin the change by describing the vision and goals. Change fail because what ought to be done is not articulated clearly within the given period. Failure to establish a stakeholder evaluation to ensure all individuals and groups are considered, results in failure to communicate with these groups or individuals on what their concerns may be or the best manner to communicate fundamental concerns. The most regular communication errors committed is assuming that everything is covered when they are not (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 511).
Lack of accountability and alignment can result in difficulty of achieving change within healthcare setting. Accountability or alignment is crucial to long-term success of change initiative. More often than not, change initiatives are never part of individual's objectives or goals, and they are never held liable in any manner for the outcomes. It makes the change not to command the required magnitude of attention. Many institutions proceed without ensuring clear alignment between goals and performance, besides, such progress are executed without holding people accountable for outcomes. Putting in place the appropriate management structures as well as systems are lacking and skimping on the planning stage of change process is rampant. There is a lack of assessment, leveraging of strengths in organization, as well as ensuring workers are correctly aligned or plans for instantaneous changes. For these reasons, change within healthcare setting is difficult (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 149).
Change is difficult within healthcare setting because those implementing change never bother to convince healthcare workers that the proposed changes are the most appropriate for better results. Attempts to convince healthcare workers that the correct strategy to handle concerns has been chosen have always failed. Change initiatives are always contested, all healthcare workers can come to consensus on the necessity for quality, though not on what describes quality or how it ought to be attained (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 513). The lack of professional consensus on the justification for a change, leads to wastage of energy and time debating the legitimacy or seeking to accomplish a specific standard for healthcare. Minimizing the number of issues to be handled and avoiding concerns that are scientifically contested or disputed may assist make change more achievable, but this is always lacking (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 149).
In practice, change is more probable in situations where correspondence between the statistical prove given by the research or investigation evidence base as well as clinicians’ reasoning on what is probably to function in practice exist (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 148). It implies that even quality standards that seem relatively accepted in scientific terms can be open to criticism if they never align with people’s reasoning, if they result in many priority conflicts, or if they threaten workers interests. Different types of evidence can have varying levels of credibility with diverse managerial and professional groups. Such differences always make a change difficult within healthcare setting. For that reason, effective evidence, that is always lacking, is significant, though it does not ensure involvement or implementation itself. The missing gap in active work or plan to achieve credibility is required. It is probably to mean working with different professional or managerial groups on their terms, as well as aligning the initiative for change with all groups' notions and values of best practice. Change that accompanies the grain and are in line with the broader changes within the healthcare environment can be more probable to succeed (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 517). Without such alignment, workers can push back and decline to participate in change (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 146). Connecting with existing ways of performing duties with an institution can play a role in achieving change. For example, early warning can link with long-standing beliefs of monitoring signs, for that reason, are perceived as acceptable instead of disruptive innovations.
Change within healthcare setting has been difficult because of organizational capacities, contexts, as well as cultures. One significant challenge, which change agents fail to ensure, is aligning organizational objectives with change initiatives (Scott 20). Some healthcare institutions do not seem to value change, sometimes based on reasoning that the change competes with some pressing demands on institutional resources, support, and attention. The internal politics of the institution are always implicated within cultural support for change, and most of the time not easily recognizable from a mere inspection of a health facility structure (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 150). Within health institution, connection between managers and clinician teams are significant to achieving change. Nevertheless, it is not always the case resulting in difficulties in achieving change within healthcare setting.
A disconnect of institutional engagement in change initiatives may imply that committed workers are tasked to ensure success of change while executing their other commitments. It is always challenging to spare time and concentrate on change initiatives that are not considered as priorities or of critical concern by the broader institution (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 517). Inadequacy of logistical and emotional support for workers’ participation tends to cause unsustainable change, which fades out with time (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 147). Inadequate structures and systems to support change often imply establishing novel processes, as well as systems from scratch (Scott 25). Without such structures, institutions lack the ability to gain completely from the rewards, though creating novel systems or structures may be expensive in services, which lack the infrastructure and experience to support change.
Absence or passive leadership support has resulted in difficulties achieving change within healthcare setting. Leadership participation is significant to achieving change. It is impossible to merely flip a switch or change, and then have change proposal on autopilot. The most remarkable efforts have had explicit support as well as participation of the executive team. It can entail personally taking part in report-out meetings to review results and publicly acknowledging change initiatives. Most executive teams do not walk with team members to fathom what they do, for that reason; achieving change within healthcare setting has been difficult (Scott 30). Another factor for difficulties in achieving change in healthcare setting is macro-management. It denotes the other side of the continuum or spectrum regarding leadership. It is significant to champion change without excessively scripting the group as they endeavor to implement change, and to join when objectives are achieved. Giving room for a command as well as control method to take place within the institution is the quickest approach to stifling engagement and innovation from group members. More often than not, leaders fail to create vision, assist remove barriers, and empower the workers, which cause difficulties in achieving change within healthcare setting (Scott 24).
Overloaded workforce has resulted in difficulties achieving change within healthcare setting. Inadequate resources and heavy workload are rampant complaints when an institution attempts to introduce some novel change proposal. People will tend to argue that they have many activities ongoing, and that it will take additional time from their work. It has always occurred because leaders do not communicate clearly that the proposed change initiatives are meant to make things easier and not adding more to the workload. Leaders have always failed to demonstrate the gains of rethinking workflow as well as employing the novel technologies or processes to eliminate non-value steps (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 516). Difficulties in achieving change within healthcare setting have always been experienced because of inadequate structures as well as systems. Lack of structures has impeded greatly the chances of success in achieving change initiatives. Inadequate structures or systems can include offering inappropriate computer software and systems, inappropriate performance management framework, as well as failing to introduce the best strategy to lead change or transformation. The systems for change always lack basic core principles, which support transformation, and are rigid in adopting different circumstances or evolving needs (Scott 25).
Difficulties are experienced in achieving change within healthcare setting due to poor control plans to assess and sustain outcomes. Many examples of exemplary planning, as well as implementation, exist when it is about introducing change. The challenge appears to be in ensuring the outcomes are sustained. There are challenges in designing strategies to sustain the outcomes institution has worked hard to attain. Some institutions prefer to outsource change agents to lead as well as supervise the change proposals. Other institutions have different teams that report to one office. Besides, others depend on system-level balanced scorecards, control charts, as well as dashboards to manage change (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 135). Creating a control plan or strategy assists to track challenges early before change initiative lose track.
There have been difficulties achieving change within healthcare setting due to policy issues. External, authorized requirements for achieving policy objectives, accreditation or inspection, payments, targets, data collection, as well as revalidation all have an influence on change by consuming attention, energy or resources. Sanctions for violating some activities can depress maintenance for other, unauthorized actions, such as change. Turbulence in organization structure as well as policy direction within healthcare setting has always resulted into barrier for change. Constant changing policy agendas in the course implementing change have proved as an obstacle to change (Scott 20). In addition, the disruption or distraction linked to transformations in the structure, institution, and the policy turbulence within healthcare setting can result in basic shifts within the context, which healthcare transformation occurs.
There have been difficulties achieving change within healthcare setting because those leading the change do not take enough time to reflect prior beginning change initiative. There is always a rush to start the change without a proper plan and identification of many inter-dependent elements that must be considered for change initiatives to be successful (Pearson, Field, and Jordan 137). In addition, it is significant to guarantee that change structures and language never alienate those that are relied upon for change. Of great significance is the time required to create the justification ground for change, giving time for stakeholders to discuss and establish genuine ownership. There is always a lack of strategies to develop a culture, which encourages a multi-professional mechanism to change and strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging workers' internal motivators as well as employing externally defined needs to drive change. Difficulties in achieving change within healthcare setting have been experienced because of extra pressure to ensure change takes place immediately and cultural bias of healthcare to rush to executing change. If the leaders were to take their time to get right measurement, as well as stakeholder participation, there will be high chances of enthusiasm, momentum, or profound outcomes that accompany change at its best (Basford, Lynn, and Oliver 518).
Any or all of the discussed factors can impede change in the healthcare institution, though effective leadership can never be overstressed as a significant factor for successfully driving change initiatives within healthcare setting. Increasing the efficiency as well as closing the gap of optimal healthcare requires leaders to ignore compliance with outdated management models. In summary, making decision to execute a novel solution or strategy is easy. Nevertheless, execution of such strategy and sustaining it, seems difficult. Whatever form the change proposal may take, it gains from proper planning and caution in bypassing the most critical roadblocks. A formal procedure to speed change has been particularly significant when employed together with other advancement efforts to ensure approval is granted for the plan laid for the organizational change.

Works Cited

Basford, Lynn, and Oliver Slevin. Theory and Practice of Nursing: An Integrated Approach to Patient Care. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, 2003. Print.
Pearson, Alan, John Field, and Zoe Jordan. Evidence-based Clinical Practice in Nursing and Health Care: Assimilating Research, Experience, and Expertise. Oxford: Blackwell Pub, 2007. Print.
Scott, W R. Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000. Print.