Crisis Management, Case Study Example

The difference existing between the two stories is how the hospitals handled the issue of admitting the mistakes that were purely contributed by the hospitals. While the first hospital was forthcoming in accepting the mistake of overdosing the 6-year old patient, the second hospital was reluctant in admitting contributing to the pressure ulcer to the patient.

The difference in the approach to a nearly similar mistake can be explained by the leadership competencies that the hospital managers possess. While in the first hospital, the manager believes in transparency and straightforwardness, in the second hospital, the leader lacks transparency and is a type of leader who would not accept mistakes even when on the wrong. The fact that the manager in the first hospital understood that the mistake was coming from the hospital was important in ensuring that the issue is addressed and even set new methods for quality improvement in the future.  However, in the second hospital, the likelihood of quality being improved in this hospital is very minimal, and the lack of transparency is very detrimental as it can open legal battles that can negatively affect the hospital.

As my response to the lawyer, I would tell him that honesty is the best policy at all times, and the approach they are using to address the problem at hand is akin to burying the head in the sand. A problem is well solved when you talk with the victim and look for ways to prevent the same in the future. At the moment, the patient has the upper hand, and in the event that he decides to sue the hospital, he will win the case due to sufficient evidence. Therefore, the lawyer ought to advise the hospital to rethink their position and uphold honesty in handling the patient’s issue and ensure that services are improved to avoid an occurrence of such in the future.