Mintzberg’s Configuration In A Healthcare Organization Essay Example For College

The management of a healthcare organization is a constantly evolving concept. For this reason, there is no definitive answer to the question of the best organizational configuration. For instance, the traditional approach to governance with a strict hierarchy would certainly require a simple structure. However, it is mostly viewed as obsolete by now. Thus, given the recent trends in managerial practices in healthcare, such as shared governance, the shift towards just culture, and favoring of the regionalized and personalized approaches, the organizational configuration that would work best in the modern healthcare organization is the professional bureaucracy.

There are several reasons for this. First, such a structure empowers individual workers and allows for the decentralization of responsibilities (Longest & Darr, 2014). While the traditional approach to governance implies the clearly defined hierarchy of managers, such a method gradually loses its popularity in favor of what is known as shared governance. Under such a model, individual employees are given a certain degree of freedom in decision-making. This results in improved responsibility and accountability creating a favorable environment for participation in the organizational improvement and has been reported to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction (Morgan & Yoder, 2012).

Another reason for the professional bureaucracy to fit the modern approach to healthcare management practices is the reviewed concept of accountability. The shift towards the “just culture” which views the mistakes of the employees as a possible result of the system imperfection and encourages reporting and analyzing rather than concealing them is only possible through the additional freedom granted by the decentralization of responsibilities. The healthcare providers are not restricted by the unjustified punishment and thus are actively participating in the improvement of the system as a whole.

Finally, the strongest argument for the use of the professional bureaucracy as a predominant design is the possibility to personalize the care and cater it to the needs of individual patients. While the scientific method has defined the development of healthcare in the modern age, the growing body of evidence supports the need for the individual approach depending on the multitude of factors, including social, economic, cultural, and psychological. Some of the factors, especially the latter, only come into play at the individual level, where a specific approach is required for certain patients, and the restrictions of managerial regulations can have adverse results for patient satisfaction and, in some cases, negate the effectiveness of treatment (Morgan & Yoder, 2012). The cultural and social factors, however, usually apply to a larger scale and have already resulted in the introduction of regionalized care. Such phenomenon would either be severely hampered or downright impossible without a certain degree of freedom granted by the lack of restrictions that come, for instance, with the machine bureaucracy.

However, the standardized practices based on the scientific evidence mentioned above also demand the retention of a certain level of control. For this reason, adhocracy can be discarded as having an excessive degree of freedom and decentralization (Longest & Darr, 2014). Similarly, the divisional-sized form is unacceptable as it will inevitably widen the gap between the departments and areas of healthcare instead of unifying the practices.

Thus, while some of the organizational configurations have certain advantages in the field of health care, it is the professional bureaucracy that unites all of the benefits of the current understanding of managing a healthcare organization. It introduces a required degree of freedom without compromising the standards, aligns well with the just culture, and gives individual employees an opportunity to adjust the services to the individual needs of patients to improve outcomes.

References

Longest, B. B., Jr., & Darr, K. (2014). Managing health services organizations and health systems (6th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press.

Morgan, S., & Yoder, L. H. (2012). A concept analysis of person-centered care. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 30(1), 6-15.

Introduction To Modern Art: Stylistics

What is Stylistic Evidence?

To examine a masterpiece, historians may use specific methodologies on particular art’s features basis. Stylistic evidence is one of the approaches to recognize the age of an example of art. It applies to a distinctive way of artifact production that may be common to a certain period. For instance, caves curved with rocks indicate primitive peoples primary attempts to create art and its ancient origin.

What is Personal Style?

Personal style is an artist’s manner of creating his masterpieces. It is used to examine art pieces with the same distinguishing features when the evidence about their author is missing. The purpose of personal style detection is to discover the artist who created a work. For instance, Aivazovsky’s paintings usually hold the same line that may help find the work, which belongs to him, referring to his style.

What is Iconography?

Pictorial subjects are divided by historians into categories such as portraiture, religious, historical, and others, depending on what represents a piece of art. Iconography means a particular subject and research of its features. The instances of subjects are represented but not limited to colors, texture, symbols, and composition. Iconography is used to recognize a hidden meaning an artist put into his masterpiece and determine its affiliation to a specific art genre.

Why Look at Art?

Art is a significant component of culture, which provides people with visual images. A substantial part of art is presented in most objects people consider “common” ones, such as newspaper photos, works in a museum, birds, and many others. But sometimes, art contained in surroundings conceives a temptation to stop the time and take a deep look at its beauty. This moment makes a person see beyond the first impression and is a reason why people look at art.

Hirst’s Shark: Interpreting Contemporary Art

Hirst’s Shark is a piece of art representing death’s physical impossibility from a living human’s perspective. This work shows the fear to its viewer, as a shark is considered a threat to a person’s life. It may not be possible for ordinary people to imagine death, as the human consciousness cannot perceive this understanding. Artist used a shark in vitrine to make an illusion of existence on the edge of extinction.

Hydraulic Fracking And Methane Pollution In The US

Hydraulic fracking is increasingly becoming a standard practice for gas generation in the U.S. The country predominantly embraces shale oil and gas extractions following successful horizontal drilling techniques. Nonetheless, sustained fracturing has trigged certain factions of society to voice concerns over the need to shift from natural gas advancements to enhanced adoption of renewable energy. Whereas some sources link continued hydraulic operations to high global methane levels, other authorities discredit such claims, mentioning its benefits and how green completion method is efficaciously employed to lower possible methane seepage during boring.

First, methane from shale surpass those emanating from biogenic sources. The high discharges from shale oil and gas following the commercialization of these products have substantially increased fossil-fuel emanations in recent times. During fracking, the gas leaks as a result of purposeful venting, flow back period, and blowdowns during emergencies. Reduced methane concentration is critical since climate systems react more quickly with the gas, thereby providing the best route for swiftly increasing the global warming rate (Howarth 335). Methane discharges also result in sustained low-level ozone, resulting in momentous destruction to food production and human health (Howarth 336). The investigation validates the correlation between the upsurge in methane and the booming fracking occurring in the country. The analysis shows methane chemical fingerprints in the increased global atmospheric methane levels. It further depicts methane as a powerful greenhouse gas, which heats the atmosphere faster than carbon dioxide, becoming a leading contributor to global warming. It recommends utilization of clean, renewable energy that conserves environment.

Second, National Geographic explains how thriving natural gas fracturing causes a surge of methane in the atmosphere. Through fossil fuel developments, the levels of methane being released into the sky have increased substantially (Leahy). The heightened activities in the oil and gas sector have triggered considerable concentrations of methane in the global atmosphere to levels that surpass the amounts produced by wetlands and cows. The major increase is a concern since the gas swiftly heats climate systems more than eighty times compared with similar amounts of carbon dioxide. The emitted methane changes to carbon dioxide after about twenty years and can last in the atmosphere for tens of decades.

Third, the developments of natural gas were meant to eradicate the harsh environmental effects associated with coal explorations. Fracking activities by oil and gas companies have obliterated some of climate merits of this new form of energy. Moreover, the shift from coal to natural gas has led to low carbon dioxide emissions but high methane emanations from sustained drilling, negating the realized gains (Storrow). To confirm the severity of the situation, a research established that about 3.7 percent of natural gas generated in some site in the Permian Basin leaked (Storrow). The released amount can match carbon dioxide that could have been produced in coal extraction.

Contrarily, Hydraulic fracking and methane emissions elicit controversy as seen in some authorities. The developments in the natural gas sector are impressive coupled with an array of benefits realized out of such operation (Davis 64). The claim that oil and gas drilling results in methane leaking are highly belligerent. Further examination is required to constrain uncertainty and have stoutly supported verdicts. In a well-managed scenario, fracturing does not result in methane emission. Nonetheless, the regulatory environment of gas and oil operations as broken, disjointed federalism that requires urgent attention (Davis 64). The state-level politics and economic contexts in various fracturing states largely contribute to the fragmented regulatory framework (Davis 67). Moreover, the public policy advantages outweigh the potentially destructive effects from fugitive methane discharges (Davis 63). Fracking activities offer abundant domestic energy, natural gas provides cleaner energy, and drilling operations lead to economic gains such as revenue generation, job creation, and infrastructure development.

Additionally, the recent increase in shale gas drilling in the U.S., facilitated by hydraulic fracking and horizontal puncturing to extract hydrocarbons in eccentric geological formations in tight sand or shale remains a constructive move. Even though issues of potential health, environmental, and climate change implications have been previously raised, the author asserts that existence of insignificant methane emissions from fracking activities. Drilling companies successfully deploy strategies and technologies such as green completion methods to lower possible methane seepage. Possible malfunctioning of the methane sampler could have led to its emission even though with limited implications (Alvarez et al. 2). Nonetheless, oil and gas drilling has proven to be safe with insignificant leaks of methane into the atmosphere.

In conclusion, hydraulic fracking and methane emissions is a highly contentious matter, and various groups have different positions on the issue. Numerous studies and reports link constant operations to the increased global atmospheric methane concentrations. They assert that fossil fuel production has substantially led to more methane levels in the sky than those from biogenic sources such as livestock and wetlands. Contrarily, other studies defend the practice, noting that drilling companies have elaborate measures that curb possible methane seepage coupled with the vast socio-economic benefits from the activity.

Works Cited

Alvarez, Ramon, et al. “Possible Malfunction in Widely used Methane Sampler Deserves Attention but Poses Limited Implications for Supply Chain Emission.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-9.

Davis, Charles. “Fracking and Environmental Protection: An Analysis of US State Policies.” The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 63-68.

Howarth, Robert. “Ideas and Perspectives: Is Shale Gas a Major Driver of Recent Increase in Global Atmospheric Methane?” Biogeosciences, vol. 16, no. 15, 2019, pp. 3033-3046.

Leahy, Stephen. “Fracking Boom Tied to Methane Spike in Earth’s Atmosphere.” National Geographic, 2019.

Storrow, Benjamin. “Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas.” Scientific American, 2020.

error: Content is protected !!