The characteristics of a high-reliability organization are standardized and universally recognized as five qualities or attributes within a high-risk organization. First, the organization is intimately in tune with and even consumed with the possibility of catastrophe or failure. Next, the organization does not have an ego that doesn’t allow for experts to evaluate or qualify said organization. That means that a high-reliability organization welcomes the chance for experts to come in and analyze it for possible problems. Third, the organization and the people within it carry an intuitive sense of the operations of the organization. Next, the high-reliability organization doesn’t allow for vagueness or generalities in any of its operations. It demands detailed protocols. Finally, a high-reliability organization bounces back readily to audits, examinations, mistakes, errors, and problems; it does not dwell on past mistakes or continue reacting without fixing the problem.
When compared with the current organization with which I am affiliated, the most striking difference would be in the submissiveness to outside examiners coming into the organization. My organization is resentful of and at time, disrespectful to of outside auditors, internal auditors, government inspectors like OSHA, and even entities such as the local building code inspector and fire marshal. Additionally, there is a difference between my organization and high-reliability organizations in the preciseness of information within the organization. Personnel policy and procedure manuals have not been update for years and contain outdated information and they are also missing information. There are no job descriptions, organizational charts, or training checklists, either.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Creating Culture".
The video entitled “Health Information Technology: Key to Quality Improvement” was interesting because it put a new perspective on information. It identified information as something that acts, reacts, impacts, educates, and protects (for example, protects patients from medical errors). Specific to health information, this video called out the Cleveland Clinic as a good example of quality improvement in health care due to the extensive health information management system. The video argues for a nationwide medical records system. It states that the capability is there, but it is not yet in place. Interesting, it does not, however, state why this is the case. This video uses pathos and ethos to convince the viewer that this nationwide system is sorely needed.
The video entitled “Information is Care – Don Detmer, American Medical Informatics Association” interviews Detmer, a member of the association to first define what medical informatics is and then what the goal of the users of medical information is or at least, should be. Detmer gives useful concrete examples, such as telemedicine and continuity of care, for which medical informatics can improve access and improve medical outcomes. Detmer stresses that tracking actions and outcomes through medical informatics is crucial in developing a more effective and global system of health care.
In “The Future of Health Information Technology – Is Standardization Possible,” a conversation between several health care experts from a wide variety of fields (not just medicine) have an intense discussion about what the future of health care information should look like. One of the panelists explained how it was important that physicians be able to relate to their patients and their illness through electronic medical information. This was both interesting and unfortunate, as it does seem more efficient, but also much less personal. There was also some discussion about why more hospitals and physicians have not adopted computerized systems for their hospitals and practices. Perhaps cost and time factors should be considered here. Outcomes seemed to be important to these panelists, but current sociological reasons why adoption rates are lower than desired was not addressed by the panelists.
