It is hard to disagree that medical leaders may encounter a vast number of different challenges. Sometimes, employees have personal problems or conflicts that prevent them from fulfilling their duties productively and correctly. In other cases, a client may violate the office’s policy, and it is essential to resolve the matter ethically. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss two case scenarios.
Evidently, when having to work together, workers may experience difficulty finding compromise or maintaining good relations. Thus, numerous conflicts may arise, and it is the task of an ethical and responsible leader to manage any emerging conflict and try to solve the situation correctly. In the first case scenario, an employee known for being vindictive and manipulative accuses another worker with an exemplary record of taking drugs from the supply cabinet. According to Booth (2020), it is possible for Katherine to refer to the five-step problem-solving model (p. 1253). First, she has to identify the problem, meaning that both employees should tell their own truth, and it is especially important that Katherine allows the accused worker to explain the situation. Second, the supply cabinet should be assessed to determine whether any drugs are missing, and CCTV cameras need to be checked.
Next, depending on the investigation results, either of the two workers should be punished for their actions. If the first employee lied about the theft or the second worker actually took the drugs, Katherine can reprimand them in writing (Booth, 2020). A stricter policy about accessing the supply cabinet should be created, and Katherine needs to evaluate the relationships between the two employees and be more careful with the vindictive and manipulative one. Since the problems between them affect the workplace, it is of vital importance to identify the initiator of the conflicts and issue a warning. Finally, their future performance should be carefully evaluated after the measures are taken.
Further, it may also happen that a challenging situation emerges because of a client’s actions. In the second case scenario, the office has a certain policy about copayments being collected at the time of service. Indeed, this requirement is supported by Booth (2020) – the author says that copayments have to be charged at each visit, either before or immediately after the consultation. However, Christine, a regular patient of the facility, has been skipping her copayments for the last three visits, and it is challenging for the office to decide whether Christine should be denied services for future appointments. On the one hand, the office is indeed protected by policies that highlight their right to collect copayments for each visit (Booth, 2020). On the other hand, it is not recommended for the office to deny services because this is unethical and can also be illegal.
First of all, since Christine has been a patient of the medical center for ten years, it is possible for the facility to consider her situation and make an exception for her. Second, if the office does not want to make an exception, the medical center needs to verify that Christine’s copayments are not optional; in case they are, she cannot be denied services. Further, if her copayments are mandatory, it is recommended for the center to inform the patient about her debt. Then, the office needs to give Christine a receipt or bill with the total sum she owes and provide her with a reasonable time to pay this debt. If she refuses to do that, the office should deny services for future appointments.
Reference
Booth, K. A. (2020). Medical assisting: Administrative and clinical procedures (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.