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.

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

MOD004062 Leadership and Change

WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:

• This assignment must be completed individually. 
• You must use the Harvard referencing system.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.

SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT: MOD004062 Leadership and Change

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%. 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.

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.

Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the iCentre Adviser. Please contact iCentre@lca.anglia.ac.uk.  A request must normally be received and agreed by the iCentre Adviser in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline.  See rules 6.56-6.65:

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 iCentre@lca.anglia.ac.uk  See rules 6.103 – 6.132:

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. Explore and critically appraise strategies and methods used for the planning and management of change

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:

• Because of a shortage of nurses, when patients arrived at A&E, the seriousness of their condition was assessed by a receptionist who was not clinically trained. Patients were then moved on to a reception area that was out of sight of reception staff.
• There were shortages of essential equipment such as cardiac monitors.
• Because of the shortage of doctors and nurses, assessment and treatment were often delayed.
• Junior doctors were pressurized to make decisions quickly.
• Doctors were diverted from treating seriously ill patients to deal with more minor conditions in order to avoid breaching the government-imposed target that 98% of patients arriving at A&E should be seen and either admitted to a ward or discharged within four hours. 
• Another tactic to ‘stop the clock’ and avoid breaching this target was to move patients out of A&E to the emergency assessment unit. Once there, because of staff shortages, they were not properly monitored.
• Nurses had high workloads, and many were under trained. Cases were reported where nurses turned equipment off because they did not know how to use it.
• Because of staff cuts there were too few consultants to supervise junior doctors.
• There were too few operating theatre sessions at weekends.
• Patients had to wait for medication, pain relief and wound dressing and sometimes the wrong medication was administered. 
• The care of post-operative patients was so poor that signs of deterioration were missed or ignored.
• Relatives reported that patients were left for long periods in soiled bedclothes and were left without food or drink (there were even reports of thirsty patients drinking water out of flower vases). 

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 issues highlighted in the case study 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.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Ensure you use the correct report format: 

• Cover page with index
• Executive summary (a ‘summary’ of the key recommendations for the CEO)
• Introduction
• Tasks – main body including analysis and evaluation 
• Conclusion
• Recommendations 
• References
• Appendices

Please note:

• The word count should be 3000 words (+/- 10%)
• You may include appropriate graphics to support your points if you consider they will add value to your answer
• This is not to be written as an ‘essay’
• Cover page, Exec Summary, References and Appendices are NOT included in the word count)
• You must use academic theory and other robust sources to support your text, and any theory used should be applied to the context of the scenario
• You must use in-text citations to evidence your work, in addition to producing a full list of references in the bibliography. All of these should conform to Harvard Referencing format. Explore and critically appraise strategies and methods used for the planning and management of change
• The bulk of this text should be your own original work and should not be excessively paraphrased.

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 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 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.

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.

Table 1: Assessment rubric for the ‘MOD004062 Leadership and Change Management’ module