The work addresses the alternatives to CareCom’s decisions that was taken during the project’s phase III and their potential benefits for the health system of the United Kingdom.
It goes without saying that the decision of CareCom and mid-county adult social care may be regarded as appropriate. With the shift of commissioners’ focus and support for another activities and changed policy priorities, the Frailty Project was in danger of closure (Sjöblom, Löfgren and Godenhjelm, 2013; Implementation barriers, 2014; Nielsen et al., 2018; Kringelum and Brix, 2020). That is why CareCom and colleagues were forced to take responsibility for the innovation process on the basis of lesson learned and previous mistakes to adopt practices essential for patients (Harris and Tucker, no date). At the same time, from a personal perspective, NHS England could keep its focus on the Frailty Project. For this, it could analyze all advantages and disadvantages of shift according to the expediency and priority of projects for patients (Goffin and Mitchell, 2017; Dodgson, Gann and Satter, 2008). In this case, the issue of two hospitals’ performance may be solved by the creation of steering committees that will elaborate on units’ strategies for improvement. In turn, “a single accountable care organization that would integrate social care, community care and acute care” could be created as it had been planned (Harris and Tucker, no date, p. 11). In this facility, CareCom, mid-county adult social care, and other front-line specialists related to social, acute, and primary care would be able to create a unique structure on the basis of respectful cooperation, knowledge sharing, and the centralization and optimization of activities. In addition, every department will perform on the basis of the distributed leadership model. In other words, managers will be responsible for their subordinates’ activities, however, they will be autonomous in decision-making and the generation of new ideas.
These initiatives have multiple benefits for the health care system of the United Kingdom. First of all, the analysis of projects’ priorities will help avoid tunnel vision and perceive all potential perspectives (Newell et al., 2009; Clegg, Harris and Hopfl, 2011; Hayes, 2018). In turn, the creation of a care organization will substantially improve patients’ health outcomes as the quality of health care delivery will increase due to the optimization of services. Finally, the inclusion of all departments and the application of distributed management as the combination of various leadership styles will enhance open communication and employees’ cooperation, productivity, and creativity. One of the successful examples of the application of distributed leadership is the leadership style of Google (Manimala, Wasdani and Wasdani, 2013). Due to the differences in its top managers’ leadership practices, a unified approach cannot be applied – thus, it implies the combination of various techniques. At the same time, leaders are responsible for the balance of accountability, autonomy, and capacity.
Reference List
Clegg, S. R., Harris, M. and Hopfl, H. (2011) Managing modernity: beyond bureaucracy? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Satter, A. (2008) The management of technological innovation: strategy and practice. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2017) Innovation management: effective strategy and implementation. New York, NY: Red Global Press.
Harris, M. and Tucker, D. (no date) ‘CareCom: service innovation in health and social care.’ pp. 1-19.
Hayes, R. (2018) The theory and practice of change management. Basingstone: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Implementation barriers (2014) Web.
Kringelum, L. B. and Brix, J. (2020) ‘Critical realism and organizational learning.’ The Learning Organization, 28(1), pp. 32-45.
Manimala, M. J., Wasdani, K. P. and Wasdani, K. P. (2013) Distributed leadership at Google: lessons from the billion-dollar brand. Web.
Newell, S., et al. (2009) Managing knowledge work and innovation. Basingstoke: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Nielsen, J. A., et al. (2018) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning: a critical application of the 4I model.’ British Journal of Management, 29(4), pp. 835-850.
Sjöblom, S., Löfgren, K., and Godenhjelm, S. (2013). Projectified politics–temporary organisations in a public context. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 17(2), pp. 3-12.