Collaborative Decision Making through Shared Governance
The meeting was on patient safety and quality improvement at a local healthcare center. The meeting was convened to measure how the implemented strategies on quality improvement and patient safety are managed, the results that have been achieved so far and determine areas that needed corrective action. The meeting is conducted quarterly to keep tabs on the implementation of quality management. The meeting comprised of all relevant people from the different departments because quality is an issue that touches on every department in an organization and for that matter a health facility. The meeting had invited five individuals who were not members of the institution to represent the voices of the patients in the meeting.
The meeting was chaired by the President of the health center. The Chairperson dictated the proceedings by guiding the members on the procedures to follow and granting permission to the members to achieve the objectives of the meetings. The scheduled time for the meeting was two hours. The meeting constituted 50 individuals with the presence of all the departmental heads and key members of each department. The meeting has always been conducted in the organization’s auditorium where all the members sit facing a central front desk where the chairperson sits with the facility’s two vice presidents, the minute-taker and the facilitator. Robertson (2011) draws the importance of physical space and room appearance to the outcome of the task undertaken in that room. A suitable arrangement will provide good results.
The attention of the meeting was converged to the front where the chairperson was sitting. At the behest of the president, the facilitator provided the guidance and procedures of steering the agendas of the meeting. The facilitator was also responsible for all the logistic in the meeting. The meeting was divided into several parts. The first part required each department to present what they had achieved in quality in improvement and patient safety. The presentations were done in projector slides that were visible to everyone in the room. Swathi (2015) emphasized the importance of presentation as it can be used to maximize the level of impact to the audience. The presentation style utilized in the meeting employed the use of graphs and charts which had a visual appeal.
After presenting the achievements and implementation processes, each department was required to state the challenges they faced in the implementation processes and potential solutions to these problems. Therefore, each department had to present three parts i.e. achievement, challenges, and possible solutions. In the meeting, the minute-taker is the most passive member present because he is not involved in the meeting as he is only allowed to take important notes arising from the meeting.
The next step after the presentation is more engaging of all the participants because it is the Question and Answer section where any member can ask any question with the guidance of the facilitator. The departments are allowed to pose questions to each other as well as the management who were sitting right in front of them. The meeting was orderly as the members were only allowed to engage when given permission by the facilitator or the chair. The chair permitted only constructive criticism and withdrew anything that that was on the contrary.
After the departments and management had finished their Q&A, the five participants who represented the patient populace were given the chance to participate by indicating the areas that were performing well and badly, and the way this can be rectified. The public or the patients provide first-hand information because they are the consumers of the facility’s services, and they provide a more objective view on issues that the members may have a bias or subjective. In their study, Kolasa, Hermanowski, & Borek (2013) concluded that social dialogue and public participation contribute to the core elements of an effective process of health benefit basket development. AOBs were allowed, and the Chairperson had the final say of giving assurances and guidance according to the matters that arose.