We write, we don’t plagiarise! Every answer is different no matter how many orders we get for the same assignment. Your answer will be 100% plagiarism-free, custom written, unique and different from every other student.
0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – up to five working days after the published submission deadline - will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
Work cannot be submitted if the period of 5 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.
2 Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. See rules 6.64- 6.73: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Mitigation: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team - DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 – 6.141: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
Written Report Instructions
Healthcare Case Study
Patient care at the Mid Staffordshire hospitals
The board of the Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) embarked on a major change programme directed towards achieving the elite status of a foundation trust. Foundation trusts have greater autonomy than other hospitals, are less dependent on government funding and have the right to borrow money from banks. In order to achieve this sought-after foundation trust status, the Trust was required to prove its financial competence, balance its books and achieve a range of government targets such as those relating to waiting times. As the push for change gathered momentum, the Trust set itself the target of £10 million savings (8% of turnover). It achieved this by pursuing a tough top-down change strategy (see Chapter 16) that involved eliminating 150 jobs, some restructuring, an 18% reduction in the number of beds and a range of other cost-cutting measures.
The Healthcare Commission, the NHS watchdog in England, became aware that death rates for patients admitted as emergencies at the Mid Staffordshire hospitals were significantly higher than at comparable hospitals and initiated an investigation. Attention was focused on the accident and emergency (A&E) department, the emergency assessment unit and the surgical and medical management of emergency admissions.
The problems that were identified are documented in the Healthcare Commission’s report (2009). Problems were found at every step along the emergency care pathway. For example:
The top-down change strategy targeted at winning foundation trust status was successful, but only in so far as it delivered this narrowly prescribed outcome. The trust was awarded foundation status but this ‘success’ was short lived. The publication of a damming Health Commission report led to further investigations into the quality of care delivered by the Trust. The last of these was a lengthy public inquiry that led to the eventual dissolution of the Trust.
The Stafford Hospital was renamed and taken over by a newly constituted NHS Trust. Jeremy Hunt, the Minister for Health, stated in his introduction to the government’s response to the public inquiry that ‘a toxic culture was allowed to develop unchecked which fostered the normalisation of cruelty and the victimisation of those brave enough to speak up. For far too long warning signs were not seen, ignored or dismissed.’ (Patients first and foremost, 2013, p.5). Senior managers prioritized cost-cutting and cascaded orders down the hierarchy that failed to support patient care. Systems designed to draw the board’s attention to clinical issues failed to function and senior managers paid little or no attention to concerns expressed by staff, patients and relatives about the quality of patient care. ‘Targets and performance management … overwhelmed quality and compassion.’ (Patients first and foremost, 2013, p.21). Patients, their families, nurses, junior doctors, former employees, the local community and the NHS were all let down by irresponsible managers who were pursuing their own agenda.
TASK
To ensure that the top management achieves success, you are expected to produce a 3000-word report. In this report you will be required to evidence the following with reference to the Seven-Step Transformation Process above:
Task 1: Evaluate and recommend a model of change that might be utilised in order to develop an environment that would allow the organisation to be competitive. (60%)
Task 2: Analyse what might be the major resistance from employees on the recommendations made above and, using appropriate change models and interventions, how might the CEO mitigate this employee resistance? (40%)
Learning outcomes assessed
2. Explore and critically appraise strategies and methods used for the planning and management of change
4. Develop a plan to effectively manage a specified change
Hospitality Case Study
Company background
The Palm Riviera Resort (The Resort) is a hospitality organization, a subsidiary of a global resorts group headquartered in Europe. The group serves a diverse array of patrons with highly skilled chefs and other staff. The group’s strategy is the high focus on exceptional customer care, and smooth customer experience. The Resort is one of the flagship brands and sites of the group.
The resort has been established 12 years ago in the suburbs of Shanghai to serve the Group’s clients in the quickly growing Chinese market. Thanks to global key accounts and cheaper airfares, the business grew fast, and the Resort quickly became profitable and was more profitable than the group’s similar sized resort in Cappadocia, Turkey. Things were going well, until the competitive pressure started to erode profits. The management and stakeholders looked towards the General Manager (GM) who was now looking more anxious than ever. The was consistently failing to meet the profitability expectations of the owners. The ownership eventually lost confidence in the management at the time and decided to make a change. The GM was replaced with a younger GM. Clients wanted a wider range of services but at competitive costs. Costs of doing business were increasing; staff cost was increasing; while holiday and normal sales were shrinking, causing the resort incur losses. Two previous GM’s have already failed to make the turnaround and got fired. Now it is the third General 6 Manager, who is hired with the mission of making the turnaround. Failing to make profits in the last three years made the owners cautious about further investment, so the turnaround should be achieved with a low budget.
Why is the Resort in crisis?
Based on the industry and economic factors, the Resort should still be profitable. Why is it in the red then? According to the HRD who has been hired one year ago, it was caused by bad leadership, by top management complacency, neglecting continuous improvement and development for many years. Realizing the ineffectiveness of top management, the owners made a major personnel change one year ago, replacing not only the General Manager, but also most of the Directors. The new Management Team – the GM and the Directors – agree that change is needed, and it is needed now.
Plans for the turnaround
The Management Team discussed about and decided the following changes:
The other changes must be implemented within the next 12 months, but there is no detailed schedule yet.
Current situation and challenges
According to the HRD, there are major roadblocks standing in the way of successful transition:
To ensure that the top management achieves success, you are expected to produce a 3000-word report.
In this report you will be required to evidence the following with reference to the Seven-Step Transformation Process above:
Task 2: Analyse what might be the major resistance from employees on the recommendations made above and, using appropriate change models and interventions, how might the CEO mitigate this employee resistance? (40%) Learning outcomes assessed
4. Develop a plan to effectively manage a specified change.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Ensure you use the correct report format:
Please note:
Marks will be awarded as follows:
A poor answer (39% and below (Fail) misses the point of the task and fails to address the requirements listed in the brief, either entirely or to a significant degree. Expression is simplistic and vague. The answer is unstructured and also fail to use any academic support, with no citations or reference list in evidence. Answer demonstrates no analysis question and is simply a templated solution taken from other sources. Answer lacks significant originality
A basic answer (40 – 49%) addresses some of the issues and demonstrate limited knowledge of appropriate theory, but at a superficial level. It demonstrates difficulties with structure and contains some gaps in understanding. Expression lacks maturity and use of professional terminology. The material is not arranged in a user friendly, logical format. The delivery system of the programme is be unclear and there are minor 9 inaccuracies in any financial information
A satisfactory answer (50-59%) addresses a large amount of the questions and demonstrate a sound, basic knowledge of theory, but with some minor omissions in content and minor inaccuracies in expression. Structure is largely logical. There is an attempt to analyse and evidence that the solution has been tailored to a fair degree. Use of theory and evidence is reasonably good but with room left to strengthen the credibility
A good answer (60-69%) adopts a logical structure and address almost all of the questions using virtually all appropriate theory that relates. Knowledge appears be sound. The report is supported by a good variety of robust academic and industry sources. Omissions and inaccuracies are minor. Analysis and evaluation is done well, but lacks some depth, detail and sophistication
An excellent/outstanding answer (70%+) identifies all the key issues within the question and make extensive use of appropriate theory in providing a credible solution. Structures is logical and the proposal easy to follow and digest. Relevant theory and industry practice is used to produce well-supported recommendations. Grammar and academic skills is of a high standard, and analysis and evaluation is consistently delivered throughout, with sophisticated use of materials. An extensive range of sources have been uses in a highly sophisticated manner
An exceptional answer (80%+) Faultless work in terms of presentation and academic skills, and the overall credibility of the proposal is extremely high, to the extent that it might be used as a template for a future industry document. The level of detail included in the plans and schematics is exceptional without being overcrowded or confusing
The work will be assessed in an integrative manner as indicated in the marking rubric, Table 1, that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin University generic assessment criteria and marking standards: Level 6 reproduced in Table 2.
Plagiarism Report
Formatting
Title page
Bibliography
Outline
Limitless Amendments
Get all these features for £83.00 FREE
View our samples written by our professional writers to let you comprehend how your work is going to look like. We have categorised this into 3 categories with a few different subject domains