Foundations of Catholic Healthcare Leadership. Ethical Decision Making.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presentation Skills: 30 Minute Webinar Series Problem Solving from the Front of the Room or Head of the Table.
Advertisements

Meeting the Challenge Transforming Leadership. MINISTRY LEADERSHIP CENTER Ministry Leadership Center  Mission: grounded in the Catholic identity and.
Leading by Convening: The Power of Authentic Engagement
Definitions Patient Experience Patient experience at NUH results from a range of activities that all impact upon patient care, access, safety and outcomes.
Note: Lists provided by the Conference Board of Canada
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE. 2 Implemented in 12 countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, through IUCN regional.
ETHICS ETHICS. ETHICS SEEKS TO DETERMINE WHAT A PERSON SHOULD DO, OR THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION, AND PROVIDES REASONS WHY. IT ALSO HELPS PEOPLE DECIDE.
Shared Decision-Making November 29, 2007 LEARNERS=LEADERS.
Ethics in Action HST II Class. Objectives / Rationale Health care workers must understand ethical and legal responsibilities, limitations, and the implications.
ICS 417: The ethics of ICT 4.2 The Ethics of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Business by Simon Rogerson IMIS Journal May 1998.
Project Monitoring Evaluation and Assessment
Social Justice and Recreation Larry D. Roper Oregon State University.
Public Consultation/Participation in an EIA Process EIA requires that, as much as possible, both technical / scientific and value issues be dealt with.
Local Government & Community Participation
The Chaplain as Spiritual Guide in Ethics Consults 2006.
Subject Selection and Recruitment David Wendler Department of Clinical Bioethics NIH, USA.
1 Dumping Robert’s Rules, Let’s Focus on Participatory Decision Making August 3, 2006 Alliance for Nonprofit Management Monica Herrera
Understanding Boards Building Connections: Community Leadership Program.
Risk Management and Strategy Prioritisation Intelligence Step 8 - Risk Management and Strategy Prioritisaiton Considering the risks associated with action.
Putting It all Together Facilitating Learning and Project Groups.
HANCOCK CENTRAL SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP TEAM SEPTEMBER 14, 2012.
ISA 220 – Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information
Control environment and control activities. Day II Session III and IV.
Delmar Learning Copyright © 2003 Delmar Learning, a Thomson Learning company Nursing Leadership & Management Patricia Kelly-Heidenthal
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Overview
Ethics Committee Structures & Decision Making Models Philip Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Ethics
Involving the Whole Organization in Creating or Restructuring a Volunteer Program Louise DeIasi DeCava Consulting.
Who decides in health care? Philip Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Mission & Ethics
Shelter Training 08b – Belgium, 16 th –18 th November, 2008 based on content developed by p This session describes the benefits of developing a strategic.
Guidance for AONB Partnership Members Welsh Member Training January 26/
O F F I C E O F T H E Auditor General of British Columbia 1 OAG Review of the Performance Agreements between MoHS and Health Authorities.
Developing a Missions Strategy That Fits Your Church Part II: Establishing Priorities David Mays.
Canada/US Experiences in Public Involvement Learning from our Neighbours C2D2 Presentation Miriam Wyman and Sandra Zagon Collaboration Practitioners Network.
Journal Write a paragraph about a decision you recently made. Describe the decision and circumstances surrounding it. How did it turn out? Looking back,
Crosswalk of Public Health Accreditation and the Public Health Code of Ethics Highlighted items relate to the Water Supply case studied discussed in the.
Copyright © 2014 by The University of Kansas Health Impact Assessment.
Who decides in health care? Philip Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Mission & Ethics
Copyright © 2014 by The University of Kansas Developing and Using Criteria and Processes to Set Priorities.
Screen 1 of 22 Food Security Policies – Formulation and Implementation Policy Monitoring and Evaluation LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define the purpose of a monitoring.
How to Analyze Organizational Ethics: The Case of Resource Allocation Philip Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Mission & Ethics
CHAIRING SKILLS. Why do we have Meetings? Why have meetings? Make policy Take decisions Agree priorities Ensure probity Co-ordinate Build morale Engage.
The Crime Victim Role: Family Group Decision Making and Restorative Group Conferencing Susan Blackburn Patti Noss April 23, 2014.
AN INTRODUCTION Managing Change in Healthcare IT Implementations Sherrilynne Fuller, Center for Public Health Informatics School of Public Health, University.
Alain Thomas Overview workshop Background to the Principles Definitions The National Principles for Public Engagement What.
Ethics Committee Structures & Decision Making Models Philip Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Ethics
Designing a Sustainable Advisory Program Facilitated by Linda Ruest NYSMSA President Educational Consultant
Performance Management
Professional Development to Practice The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education to the Missouri.
The Risk Management Process
What is Facilitation? Facilitation is the process of taking a group through learning or change in a way that encourages all members of the group to participate.
This was developed as part of the Scottish Government’s Better Community Engagement Programme.
DEVELOPING THE WORK PLAN
Chapter 9* Managing Meetings. Chapter 10/Managing Meetings Hilgert & Leonard © Explain why meetings, committees, and being able to lead meetings.
Quick Recap.
Leadership & Teamwork. QUALITIES OF A GOOD TEAM Shared Vision Roles and Responsibilities well defined Good Communication Trust, Confidentiality, and Respect.
Leading in the midst of … Change Terri Martinson Elton.
Evaluating Engagement Judging the outcome above the noise of squeaky wheels Heather Shaw, Department of Sustainability & Environment Jessica Dart, Clear.
HPTN Ethics Guidance for Research: Community Obligations Africa Regional Working Group Meeting, May 19-23, 2003 Lusaka, Zambia.
Welcome to MT140 Introduction to Management Unit 10 Seminar Reflection.
Oral Communication Skills Functions of a Meeting There are a number of functions that a meeting will perform better than other communication functions.
LECTURE 4 WORKING WITH OTHERS. Definition Working with others : is the ability to effectively interact, cooperate, collaborate and manage conflicts with.
Customised training: Controversial issues and post-16 citizenship.
CHB Conference 2007 Planning for and Promoting Healthy Communities Roles and Responsibilities of Community Health Boards Presented by Carla Anglehart Director,
AUDIT STAFF TRAINING WORKSHOP 13 TH – 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014, HILTON HOTEL NAIROBI AUDIT PLANNING 1.
1 Oregon Department of Human Services Senior and People with Disabilities State Unit on Aging-ADRC In partnership with  Portland State University School.
Prepared By :ANJALI. What is a Team? Two or more persons work together to achieve same goal or complete a task. Teams make decisions, solve problems,
Medical Legal and Ethics
Key Ethical Issue in Spiritual Care: Part II
Moral Decision-Making
Presentation transcript:

Foundations of Catholic Healthcare Leadership

Ethical Decision Making

Aims l Heighten your sensitivity and improve your skills in ethical decision making. l Give you ethical tools for making good ethical decisions l Practice use of tools with cases

Ethics: Definitions Morality=religiously informed? Ethics= secularly informed? Morality= living Ethics= reflection on living

Ethics: Goals Ethics is good business Ethics as compliance Reflections about what brings flourishing of individuals and communities.

Ethics: Goals Reflections about what brings flourishing of individuals and communities. What brings flourishing? l Protecting basic human goods l Avoiding their destruction

Ethics: Basic human goods LifeHealth Wisdom / knowledge Integrity—self knowledge Friendship—relations with others Relationship with God Play

Why use it? Consistent evidence of supporting Mission Evidence of Participation and Respect for Persons Evidence that the Spirit has guided Checks & Balances Fosters habit of moral reasoning

When to use it? Formally Decision that affect significant interests and populations Opening Closing Services Significant HR issues Development of Strategic management tools Infomrally—all moral decisions

Phase I: Preparation Number of persons/groups impacted –Does it affect a department or the institution? Duration of the impact –Does the impact last a few years or the span of the ministry? Depth or weight of impact – Does the question affect the entire ministry or a portion of it? Closeness to Core Values –Does the question directly jeopardize a value? Degree of complexity Past commitments –Does the question positively or negatively affect past commitments? Relationship to strategic direction

Whose interests are affected? Based on the nature of the issue, what other individuals or groups need to be part of the process? What is the nature and frequency of the connection between the groups and the question? What departments will be affected? What departments might have insight? What other entities will be affected by the decision? Who would have insights to the Mission and tradition as it applies to this decision?

Phase II: Decision Making 1.Pray, reflect, identify question, and clarify authority of decision-making group. Prayer and reflection are necessary because the group believes that it is God’s spirit that is guiding and perfecting the many decision-making talents brought to the table. A spirit of prayerful reflection centers the group on the fact that they are continuing the healing, transforming ministry of Jesus. Identification of the question is essential because each decision maker will perceive and state the question differently. If the question is inaccurately identified at the outset of decision making, or not agreed upon, then the ensuing process will be counterproductive. The decision-making group should be clear about its scope of authority. Do they have the ultimate decision-making authority, or are they a consultative group that provides information to the ultimate decision maker(s)?

Phase II: Decision Making 2. Determine primary and secondary communities of concern and their interests. While there may be a large community of concern, not everyone in that community has the same interests. The decision-making group should assess the manner and degree to which a sub-community will be affected positively and/or negatively. The decision-making group should consider how those who are poor and vulnerable will be affected by the decision.

Phase II: Decision Making 3. Pinpoint and gather needed information and data. What essential data have been gathered already? What essential data have yet to be gathered? Once data are gathered, does the group agree on its relevance, accuracy, and completeness?

Phase II: Decision Making 4. Identify key moral commitments and values, as well as conflicts among them. Identify the question in terms of trade-offs between one or more values. For example, consider your decision in terms of human dignity and identify the dignity trade-offs in the various options that you are weighing. Identify the major consequences of this dignity trade-off in terms of individuals and groups; in terms of long- and short-term burdens and benefits; or in terms of money, morale and relationships, etc.

Phase II: Decision Making 5. Establish priorities among commitments and values. The moral commitments and values that deserve priority will flow from consideration of strategic goals/objectives, core values, historical commitments, the broader religious tradition, and special circumstances. List each priority and provide the rationale for why it is a priority.

Phase II: Decision Making 6. Develop options that support the priorities. Identify options that promote the moral commitments and values deserving priority. Examine carefully the major options and evaluate the positive and negative consequences of these options on the identified priorities. Consider not only the burdens and benefits of the preferred option but all of the options. Do any of the options preserve and protect a majority of the identified priorities?

Phase II: Decision Making 7. In silence reflect and then listen to viewpoints. To ensure that the Spirit has guided the discussion and to promote the voice of any reservations or opposition, a quiet time of reflection should be offered during which group members consider the discussion in light of the faith tradition and personal conviction. Consider the following reflective questions: –Have I listened to the facts and appreciated the viewpoints of others? –Have I opened myself to the workings of the Spirit? –Have I sought the good of the entire ministry and then the particular good of others? Has input been elicited from all decision makers?

Phase II: Decision Making 8. Gain consensus on decision. Invite all members to express which option should be pursued and why. Discussion should be held until every member has had an opportunity to voice an opinion. At the conclusion of the participatory decision making, estimate if a consensus exists, and if not, identify the points of disagreement and allow for additional conversation for clarification. If a consensus is reached, identify the values that will suffer because of the choice. Discuss how to mitigate the harms.

Phase III: Follow Through Assign accountabilities to specific persons for each component to be realized. Build a plan for monitoring and reporting with measurable outcomes. Build a communication plan for community of concern with key messages and methods. Build a plan that connects to the larger meaning and purpose.

Case Study Appoint a reporter for your table Read the case quietly Reach agreement on what should happen with one or two supporting reasons/ rationale

Feedback 1. What did you decide? Reasons / rationale? 2. How easy was it to agree as a group on a decision? 3. Were there 2 or 3 “camps” or ways of trying to decide this case? What were they?