Change Initiative Assignment Paper

Change Initiative Assignment Paper

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper

Write My Essay For Me

Healthcare is an industry constantly evolving in response to numerous internal and external factors. Organizations are required to advance and adapt to these forces. In order to remain viable, competitive, and thriving in a complex environment, healthcare organizations must comprehend and adapt to these driving forces. This study examines the primary catalysts for transformation at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist High Point Medical Center (AHWFB-HPMC)Change Initiative Assignment Paper, puts forth strategic recommendations in response to a substantial force, and delineates a prospective vision for change.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Goals and Organizational Description

High Point, North Carolina, is served by the academic medical center Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist and the regional medical center AHWFB-HPMC. The nonprofit provides medical care to the community. The hospital offers primary care, cancer treatment, cardiology, orthopedics, pediatrics, imaging, rehabilitation, and behavioral health, among other specialties, across its more than 300 beds. Our mission is “to advance healing, elevate hope, and improve health for all,” according to the AHWFB-HPMC ((Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist High Point Medical Center, 2022)Change Initiative Assignment Paper. This mission motivates the hospital to ensure all community members receive superior and fair medical care. The organization endeavors to provide patient-centered care, cultivate a sense of belonging among staff, facilitate service delivery innovation, establish community trust, and pursue excellence through its cultural commitments.

Stakeholder Identification

AHWFB-HPMC performs stakeholder identification, which encompasses both internal and external stakeholders. Critical internal stakeholders include hospital administration, physicians, nurses, and other clinical and non-clinical personnel who provide health services (Kaur & Victoria, 2017)Change Initiative Assignment Paper. Major. External stakeholders include patients, their families, community partners, payers, regulators, policymakers, competitors, donors, and local economic interests. Donor prospects are considered external stakeholders. The expectations of each stakeholder regarding hospital operations and change vary. By taking into account the intricate stakeholder environment, AHWFB-HPMC will effectively manage industry trends, policy changes at the government level, community partnerships, and internal quality initiatives. This will assist the organization in considering various interests during the decision-making process.

Forces Driving Organizational Change

Internal and external factors exert tremendous pressure on the healthcare industry to undergo a significant transformation. The primary external drivers are policy reforms, technological advancements, demographic changes, health consumerism, labor market dynamics, environmental pressures, and economic conditions. Internal drivers include a focus on the patient experience, the well-being of staff, the utilization of data, cost control, integration models, and the redesign of care delivery (Ginter et al., 2018)Change Initiative Assignment Paper.

These elements compel healthcare organizations such as AHWFB-HPMC to decrease expenditures while operating with constrained resources, expand retail and virtual access points, integrate emerging technologies, transition staffing models, modernize care pathways, enhance health equity and population health management, promote sustainability, and maintain high standards of quality, safety, and experience. While navigating these changes, regulators, policymakers, and watchdog organizations anticipate that healthcare institutions will fulfill their social and financial responsibilities. To balance affordability, innovation, accountability, and community health, hospital administration must secure broad stakeholder agreement on a unified vision for transformation.

Analysis of a Specific Driving Force

A significant force reshaping the delivery of healthcare merits the attention of AHWFB-HPMC. Transitioning to value-based care payment models necessitates reduced costs and improved health outcomes. The volume-based payment structure of fee-for-service models for healthcare promotes care fragmentation and overutilization. By employing accountable care and bundled payment programs, private and federal payers are tying reimbursements to managing population health, costs, and quality. This is in response to the increasing popularity of these programs. Value-based purchasing necessitates long-term, patient-centered, coordinated health care instead of short-term volume (Mustafa et al., 2020)Change Initiative Assignment Paper. Per revised incentive structures, medical facilities must reduce expenditures while allocating resources toward novel capabilities. Some examples include care integration, advanced data systems, community health outreach platforms, and quality tracking. Successful hospitals require these competencies.

A comprehensive clinical reconfiguration is necessary for AHWFB-HPMC to coordinate treatment effectively, share data, involve patients in self-management, and manage populations across conditions in response to this payment transformation. Financial uncertainty will accompany the transition, but the organization must find a way to remain dormant, as estimates indicate that value-based contracts will account for more than 90 percent of payments within ten years. The system must engage individuals in holistic self-care, transform care teams, and establish robust continuum-based partnerships among payers, providers, and social services within a limited timeframe (Kruk et al., 2018). Additionally, daily decision-making must incorporate actionable data. Healthcare leaders should promptly adopt business model innovation to establish the High Point health ecosystem, promoting future community well-being and ensuring equitable access.

Proposal for Responding to Change

AHWFB-HPMC requires an Integrated Health Partnership Strategy to flourish amidst the transition to value-based care. Care pathways are reconfigured to emphasize community-based coordination under this approach. This requires modernizing care models and facilities to fill infrastructure gaps that impede internal and external integration with local partners. Establishing governance for implementing this strategy would require the hospital to invest in change management structures, such as the Population Health Department. Subsequently, cross-functional teams are recommended to optimize care pathways for diseases with the highest burden of care, establish community partnerships to tackle social determinants and implement virtual health platforms to ensure ongoing patient engagement (Drake et al., 2021)Change Initiative Assignment Paper. In order to track the progression of the care continuum, metrics frameworks must assess cost, utilization, quality, and experience. In order to attain genuine integration and eliminate professional barriers, it is imperative to implement shared governance models involving providers of post-acute, rehabilitation, home health, and ambulatory care. Lastly, governance committees should routinely evaluate population health data to identify care coordination or health equity gaps necessitating redesigned delivery workflows optimized for the whole person throughout life. By implementing this Integrated Health Partnership Strategy, AHWFB-HPMC will ensure that local communities have the necessary health ownership, continuity, and accessibility to carry out its value-based payment mission effectively. This strategy will require effort but is essential.

Development of a Vision for Change

AHWFB-HPMC can establish a regional ecosystem that integrates community health’s personal, social, and clinical determinants by utilizing health equity-based coordination pathways and cutting-edge technologies. Given the prevailing market pressures, this is of the utmost importance. In order to accomplish this objective, there is a deliberate need for collaboration among private healthcare providers, nonprofit social service organizations, and public health organizations (Rajab et al., 2021)Change Initiative Assignment Paper. Meet individuals at the precise juncture of their journey; doing so is more convenient and expedient.

In order to achieve this objective, AHWFB-HPMC must expand its conception of service and reconsider its personnel as proactive advocates who are profoundly engaged in the day-to-day experiences of the individuals whose lives we endeavor to better. This vision, if realized by AHWFB-HPMC, will serve as the foundation for health regeneration at High Point. Enhancing accessibility, eradicating systemic disparities that impede potential, and establishing enduring collaborations that generate a surplus in areas of scarcity are imperative for augmenting the economic mobility of marginalized communities.

This requires an open dialogue regarding the redefinition of long-held assumptions regarding the locations and perpetrators of health incidents. As CEO, I proactively engage medical professionals, nurses, administrators, and community members in elucidating this overarching vision and integrating their input into a collaborative strategy for execution. With cultural momentum, our organization intends to surmount long-standing obstacles to health equity and community actualization.

Evaluation of Stakeholder Responses and Conclusion

The novel concept of community-based care coordination could concern traditional healthcare stakeholders. Clinicians who prioritize professional autonomy can resist the system’s integration of hospitals, self-care, community providers, social service organizations, and public health programs. Doctors responsible for patient outcomes across the continuum may face challenges to medical practice’s sustainability and autonomy, affecting their earnings, decision-making, and professional practice. Objections require collaboration. Change Initiative Assignment Paper

Health administrators, data analysts, and direct clinical staff trained in fee-for-service settings may worry about AHWFB-HPMC expanding beyond acute episodic care as its primary revenue source. Rapid business model changes can be resisted until viability and ROI are proven. Encourage these staff by creating robust change management structures that enable two-way communication about population health rationale and real-world feedback.

Rival health systems and compartmentalized community organizations can disagree to change norms. Relationships can suffer and become untrustworthy. Hospitals, mental health counselors, public health agencies, and food banks can lose trust. Restoring it requires an unwavering commitment to interpersonal relationships and ethical guidance that serves all parties’ interests.

Psychologically safe cultures allow genuine dialogue and collective learning without fear of retribution for skepticism of the vision. Continuous stakeholder forums encourage constructive disagreement, assumptions are tested by reality, and skepticism addresses problem-solving. Leaders who balance diplomatic patience with fervent vision, conviction, and tactical flexibility will help AHWFB-HPMC persevere through community accountability.

ORDER NOW

References

Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist High Point Medical Center. (2022). Community Health Needs Assessment Implementation Strategy, Calendar Year 2022 – 2024.

Drake, C., Batchelder, H., Lian, T., Cannady, M., Weinberger, M., Eisenson, H., … & Shea, C. M. (2021). Implementation of social needs screening in primary care: a qualitative study using the health equity implementation framework. BMC health services research, 21, 1-16.

Ginter, P. M., Duncan, W. J., & Swayne, L. E. (2018)Change Initiative Assignment Paper. The strategic management of health care organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

Kaur, A., & Victoria, E. L. (2017). Major stakeholders in health care system: Government, nongovernment & other professionals. Global Journal of Business & Management, 2(1), 01-06.

Kruk, M. E., Gage, A. D., Arsenault, C., Jordan, K., Leslie, H. H., Roder-DeWan, S., … & Pate, M. (2018). High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. The Lancet global health, 6(11), e1196-e1252.

Mustafa, I. Ş. I. K., Gümüş, E., & Kasap, E. U. (2020). Evaluation of the effects of value-based purchasing applications on cost and efficiency. Journal of International Health Sciences and Management, 6(12), 14-24.

Rajabi, M., Ebrahimi, P., & Aryankhesal, A. (2021). Collaboration between the government and nongovernmental organizations in providing health-care services: A systematic review of challenges. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10. Change Initiative Assignment Paper

Assessment Description
In a written paper of 1,250-1,500 words, evaluate the current forces driving change in your field or industry. As a leader, or considering the role of a leader, assess your organization and evaluate how well it is responding to the forces, and identify where there is a need for change. Develop a vision to inspire this change. Include the following:

Describe your organization, include the organization’s mission, and identify the various stakeholders.
Identify the external and internal forces that drive organizational change in your field or industry. Explain the origin or reason for these internal or external driving forces. Explain how these forces directly affect the viability of your organization.
Choose one of the driving forces. Describe the specific issues this driving force creates, or will potentially create, for your organization or department.
Propose the steps needed for your organization or department to respond to this driving force.
Predict how employees at various levels in the organization will respond to your proposed change initiative.
Develop a vision for change. Describe how this vision correlates with the organization’s mission, and how you will present this vision to internal stakeholders.
Predict how you think your vision will assist internal stakeholders in supporting the change initiative. Identify potential considerations posed by stakeholders, and discuss how you will respond.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Rubric Criteria

Presentation of Organization
20 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Organization (Mission, Stakeholders, Driving Forces in the Industry or Field, Viability of Organization, etc.)

5. Excellent
20 points
A description of the organization is provided, including all major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and insight into the various organizational stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces contains strong support and provides clear insight into organizational viability.

4. Good
17.4 points
A description of the organization is provided, including most major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and its stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces provides insight into organizational viability, but evaluation lacks sufficient support and some minor details are missing.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
A general description of the organization is provided; some details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization, and its stakeholders are missing. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is incomplete or lacks of support.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
An incomplete description of the organization is presented; significant details regarding the mission and stakeholders have been omitted. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is missing or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No organizational description is presented.

Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department
30 points
Criteria Description
Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department

5. Excellent
30 points
Analysis of specific driving force is logically presented, including all relevant details and strong supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are clearly discussed. Analysis provides unique insight into the effects of the driving force on the viability of the organization or department.

4. Good
26.1 points
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, including major details and general supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are discussed.

3. Satisfactory
23.7 points
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it lacks details and supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are generally discussed.

2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it is incomplete. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are not discussed.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Analysis of specific driving force and the effect of this force on the organization or department is not presented.

Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change
30 points
Criteria Description
Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change

5. Excellent
30 points
Detailed steps are proposed for responding to change through a clear and logical sequence. A well-developed prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with with strong evidence to support claims.

4. Good
26.1 points
Steps are proposed for responding to change through logical sequence. A prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with general evidence to support claims.

3. Satisfactory
23.7 points
Some steps are proposed responding to change, but they lack a logical sequence and major detail. A general prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, but the prediction lacks major detail and evidence to support claims.

2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points
A general recommendation for responding to change is referenced, but it lacks specific steps. No prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, or prediction is vague and lacks supportive evidence.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No steps are proposed to respond to change.

Development of Vision for Change
40 points
Criteria Description
Development of Vision for Change

5. Excellent
40 points
A detailed vision is presented with strong supporting rationale. Vision correlates directly with the mission of the organization. Detailed steps for presenting the vision to all internal stakeholders are presented. Presentation of vision facilitates stakeholder involvement. Overall, vision is strongly conducive to supporting a change initiative.

4. Good
34.8 points
A vision is presented with rationale. Vision correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vison to stakeholders are presented. Overall, vision contains elements conducive to supporting a change initiative.

3. Satisfactory
31.6 points
A vision is presented with some supporting rationale. Vision loosely correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are generally presented.

2. Less than Satisfactory
29.6 points
A vision is presented, but it lacks rationale. Vision does not correlate with the mission of the organization, or the mission is not stated. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are incomplete or missing.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No vision is presented.

Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision
20 points
Criteria Description
Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision

5. Excellent
20 points
A detailed evaluation of stakeholder response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are clearly identified and discussed in detail; a clear and well-supported plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

4. Good
17.4 points
A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are discussed; a general plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is generally presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are generally discussed; no clear plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
A partial stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented, but it is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No stakeholder evaluation is presented.

Thesis Development and Purpose
14 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent
14 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good
12.18 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory
11.06 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less than Satisfactory
10.36 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction
16 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent
16 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good
13.92 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory
12.64 points
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less than Satisfactory
11.84 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
10 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,

5. Excellent
10 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good
8.7 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
10 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent
10 points
All format elements are correct.

4. Good
8.7 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources
10 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style

5. Excellent
10 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good
8.7 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.