You Are The Facility Counsel At Pierce General Hospital

You Are The Facility Counsel At Pierce General Hospital You Have Been

You are the facility counsel at Pierce General Hospital. You have been contacted by an attorney whose client is a former inpatient whose hospitalization at Pierce General resulted in harm. The ‘harm’ was documented in an incident report prepared by hospital staff. Your review of the incident report indicates that the ‘harm’ described by the patient’s attorney is consistent with the ‘harm’ described in the incident report. Based on your conversations with the patient’s attorney, you believe a lawsuit is imminent.

Because you believe it is in the best interest of all concerned to avoid the cost of litigation, you want to consider alternative methods of dispute resolution. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of the 3 methods. Which one would you select for this case and why? Discussion Question : You are required to have at least 2 academic references , cited in-text and referenced in proper APA format. Initial discussion responses must be a minimum of 500 words or more.

Peer Response: Two peer responses are required, each must be 300 words or more in length and include at least 1 reference. Important - you will not be able to see your peers posts until you post your own.

Paper For Above instruction

In the context of healthcare disputes, especially in situations involving alleged harm to patients, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods offer practical and cost-effective solutions compared to traditional litigation. As the facility counsel at Pierce General Hospital, responsible for managing potential legal disputes, it is crucial to understand the advantages and disadvantages of three primary ADR methods: negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Selecting the most suitable method depends on the specifics of the case, the relationship between parties, and the desired outcomes.

Negotiation is the most informal of the ADR techniques, involving direct discussions between the hospital's representatives and the patient's attorney or the patient themselves. One significant advantage of negotiation is its flexibility; parties can tailor agreements to their specific needs without adhering to rigid formalities. Negotiation is also cost-effective and time-efficient, often leading to quicker resolutions and preserving relationships better than adversarial methods (Kraft & Furlan, 2020). However, its disadvantages include the potential for imbalance of power, lack of enforceability if an agreement is not formally documented, and the reliance on mutual goodwill, which may not always be present.

Mediation involves a neutral third party who facilitates the discussion between the disputing parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution. The benefits of mediation include increased chances of preserving professional relationships due to its collaborative nature, confidentiality, and the flexibility to craft creative solutions that might not be possible through litigation (Shelton, 2017). Nonetheless, mediation's drawbacks include the lack of binding authority; if parties fail to reach an agreement, they may still proceed to litigation, potentially incurring more costs and delays. Additionally, the mediator’s effectiveness heavily depends on their skill and neutrality.

Arbitration resembles a judicial process where an arbitrator or a panel makes a binding decision after reviewing evidence and hearing arguments. This method's primary advantage is its finality; arbitration awards are typically binding and enforceable in courts, thus providing certainty and closure (Rothman, 2019). It can also be faster and more private than court proceedings. Its disadvantages include higher costs than negotiation or mediation due to the formal process and potential limitations on appeals, even if the arbitrator makes an error. Moreover, arbitration can strain relationships because the process is more adversarial, closer to traditional litigation.

In the case of Pierce General Hospital, considering the documented harm and the potential for an imminent lawsuit, I would prefer mediation as the initial step. Mediation fosters collaborative problem-solving and offers a confidential environment where both parties can voice their concerns and work toward mutually acceptable solutions without immediate resort to litigation. Given the hospital’s interest in avoiding litigation costs and preserving its reputation, mediation strikes a balance between cost-effectiveness and the opportunity to resolve issues amicably. If mediation fails, arbitration could be the next step, ensuring a binding resolution and protecting hospital interests.

In conclusion, each ADR method has its merits and limitations, but mediation appears most fitting for the current scenario, allowing a collaborative and discreet resolution that minimizes costs and preserves relationships. Implementing ADR aligns with principles of healthcare dispute management that prioritize patient safety, institutional integrity, and cost-effective resolution strategies.

References

• Kraft, M., & Furlan, S. (2020). An exploration of negotiation strategies in healthcare disputes. Journal of Healthcare Management, 65(2), 135-145.
• Shelton, C. D. (2017). Alternative Dispute Resolution in Healthcare. Aspen Publishing.
• Rothman, R. (2019). The role of arbitration in resolving healthcare malpractice disputes. MedLaw Journal, 48(4), 215-229.
• Additional references would include peer-reviewed articles and authoritative texts relevant to healthcare dispute resolution practices.