|Assessment||Coursework (Written Assignment)|
|Module Title:||Leadership and Change|
This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations
|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.
|Please refer to the deadline on the VLE|
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:
- 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.
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.
Ensure you use the correct report format:
- Cover page with index
- Executive summary (a ‘summary’ of the key recommendations for the CEO)
- Tasks – main body including analysis and evaluation
- 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.
- The bulk of this text should be your own original work and should not be excessively paraphrased.
- PLEASE FOLLOW THIS STEP FOR TASK 1 AND 2
- TASK ONE EVALUATE AND RECOMMEND A MODEL OF CHANGE THAT MIGHT BE UTILISED IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD ALLOE THE ORGANISATION TO BE COMPETETIVE
- KEEP ANSWER RELEVANT TO THE CASE STUDY THROUGHOUT
- EVALUATE DIFFERENT MODELS OF CHANGE
- LIST ALL THE MODELS YOU KNOW AND THEN POINT OUT THE THREE YOU WILL BE EVALUATING OUT OF ALL LISTED MODELS
- CHOOSE AT LIST THREE TO EVALUATE
- DESCRIBE THEIR ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES RELEVANT TO THE CASE STUDY
- GIVE REASONS WHY YOU ARE NOT CHOOSING OTHER ONES IN A FEW WORDS
- KEEP ALL EXPLAINATION RELVANT TO THE CASE STUDY
- RECOMMEND ONE MODEL TO APPLIED IN THE CASE STUDY
- MAKE THE RECCOMMENDATION BASED ON YOUR CASE STUDY AND EVALUATE
- RECCOMMENDATION SHOULD BE IN PARAGRAPH NOT BULLET POINT
- 1750WORDS TASK 1
WHEN EVALUATING THE THREE MODELS WRITE THE ADVANTAGES AND THE DISADVANTAGES RELEVANT TO THE CASE STUDY ,
WHEN EVALUATING LEWIN PLEASE USE THE LEWIN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS WITH FIGURES TO EXPLAIN RELATING TO THE CASE STUDY
EXAMPLES OF MODELS ARE
BRIDGES YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM THIS TO USE IN TASK 1
I WILL SEND THE VIDEOLINK ON YOUTUBE FOR LEWIN ON HOW TO EXPLAIN WITH TALE AND FIGURES COS THE LECTURER SAID ITS COMPULSORY
COMPLETE TASK ONE WITH RECCOMMENDATION
ANALISE WHAT MIGHT BE THE MAJOR RESISTANCE FROM EMPLOYEE ON THE RECCOMMENDATION MADE ABOVE AND USING APPROPRIATE CHANGE MODELS HOW MIGHT THE CEO MITIGATE THIS EMPLOYEE RESISTANCE?
KEEP ANSWERS RELEVANT TO THE CASE STUDY THRUOUT
2, DISCUSS DIFFERENT FORMS OF RESISTANCE BY DIFFERENT EMPLOYEES IN THE CASE STUDY ORG YOU CAN USE MENDEOW OR FORCEFIELD ETC
3,DISTINGUISH GROUP VS INDIVIDUAL CHANGE REACTION
4,DISCUSS DIFFERENT MODELS AT LEAST TWO , ADKAR OR TUCKMAN FOR GROUP REACTION AND KUBLER RUSS FOR INDIVIDUAL REACTION YOU WILL USE THIS TO ADDRESS RESISTANCE IN THE CASE STUDY
5,DISCUSS HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH EMPLOYEES IN THE CASE STUDY ORG
6, CITE AND AND WITH SUBHEADING BECAUSE IT’S A REPORT
7, CONCLUSION ;WRITE CONCLUDING REMARKS ON YOUR DISCUSSION ABOVE NOT A SUMMARY
8,RECOMMENDATION ;MAKE RECCOMMENDATION FOR CASE STUDY CEOBASED ON ISSUES FROM CASE STUDY AND YOUR DISCUSSION IN TASK 1 AND TASK 2
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
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
|CRITERIA||Mark Weight||FAIL LOW
(0 – 29%)
(30 – 39%)
|Basic Pass (40 – 49%)||SATISFACTORY PASS
(50 – 59%)
|CREDIT PASS (60 – 69%)||DISTINCTION PASS
|Non-existent to very poor in fulfilling the
requirements of the assessment.
understanding of the area and its methodologies
|Basic knowledge and understanding
of the area and
|Satisfactory in fulfilling the requirements of the assessment but critical, synthesis skills need
development and there is some missing or irrelevant material.
|Good to very good in fulfilling the
requirements of the assessment; but
gaps in the use of critical and
synthesis skills and materials.
Outstanding in fulfilling the requirements of the assessment; no
significant gaps in the use of critical and synthesis skills and materials.
|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%)||
|In assessing answers to the Tasks 1 & 2 (in Section 1), there will be due consideration of the breadth and depth of express use of management and other relevant sources appropriate to the task(s) along with propositions using, where relevant, examples from current practice.|
|Provisional Mark (Total)
Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards
ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS LEVEL 6 (was level 3)
|Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill sets. Students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism.|
|Mark Bands||Outcome||Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)|
|Knowledge & Understanding||Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills|
|Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band
|90-100%||Achieves module outcome(s) related to
GLO at this level
|Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Work may be considered for publication within Anglia Ruskin University||Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional
structure/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills. Work may be considered for publication within Anglia Ruskin University
|80-89%||Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy||Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Outstanding team/practical/professional skills|
|70-79%||Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in
theory/practice/ethics of discipline with considerable originality
|Excellent management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Very good academic/ intellectual skills and practical/team/professional/problem-solving skills|
|60-69%||Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality||Good management of learning resources, with consistent self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional/problem solving skills|
|50-59%||Satisfactory knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline||Satisfactory management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research but inconsistent. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Acceptable level of academic/ intellectual skills going beyond description at times. Satisfactory
|40-49%||A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level||Basic knowledge base with some omissions at the level of theoretical/ethical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or solve problems in discipline||Basic use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/intellectual skills. Some difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing
|30-39%||A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Possible compensation. Satisfies qualifying mark||Limited knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline||Limited use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Weak academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. General difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Practical/professional/ problem-solving skills that are not yet secure|
|20-29%||Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO. Qualifying mark not satisfied. No||Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline||Little evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Very weak academic/ intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant difficulty with structure/accuracy|
|compensation available||in expression. Little evidence of
|10-19%||Inadequate knowledge base. Inadequate understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Major difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline||Inadequate use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Inadequate input to teams. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Inadequate practical/professional/ problemsolving skills|
|1-9%||No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Total inability with theory and problem solving in discipline||No evidence of use of learning resources. Completely unable to work autonomously. No evidence of input to teams. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly descriptive. Incoherent structure/accuracy and expression. No evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills|
|0%||Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g.: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes|