Building Collaborative Relationships

Investigate communications and collaborative relationships in a case that had a negative outcome. Then, prepare an agenda for a multidisciplinary debriefing meeting with the care coordination department, in which you will present and justify your recommendations for improvements in the future provision of care.

Collaborative communication skills are essential for care coordinators; they must be able to make decisions about patient care with diverse and changing groups of stakeholders. These decisions must guide the care coordinator in providing care and client advocacy that is competent, unbiased, and sensitive to patients’ diverse needs.

This assessment provides an opportunity for you to investigate breakdowns in communication and other challenges in a case that had a negative outcome.

The Joint Commission and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality are two of many regulatory agencies that have identified the lack of communication and collaboration as a major cause of medical errors that should not occur.

Evidence-based best practices suggest that an interdisciplinary and collaborative team reduces substantial medical errors and improves the quality and safety of patient care on a national level. Governmental and regulatory agencies have stressed that effective collaboration is key to improving care for all patients.

For this assessment, you will investigate communications and collaborative relationships in a case that had a negative outcome and propose a more effective strategy for future care. Based on the results of your investigation, you will prepare an agenda for a multidisciplinary debriefing meeting with the care coordination department. In addition, you will need to present and defend your recommendations for improvement. SEE ATTACHED

Investigate communications and the collaborative relationships in the Sibanda case. Then prepare an agenda, for a one-hour meeting, identifying key topics to be discussed. Include, in the same document, your recommendations and rationale for a more effective strategy for future, patient-centered care. SEE ATTACHED

Your agenda and recommendations document should be 4–5 pages in length, not including the title page and references page.

Cite 5–7 sources of scholarly or professional evidence to support your recommendations.

Explains the relationship between effective communication and continuous monitoring of interactions among patients, families, and caregivers. Presents a cogent, articulate explanation based on insightful conclusions about the nature of the relationship between communications and continuous monitoring.

Explains how effective communication supports the provision of ethical and legal care coordination. Presents a cogent, articulate explanation based on insightful conclusions about the efficacy of effective communications and the ethical and legal dimensions of care.

Describes effective communication strategies that support the provision of ethical and legal care coordination. Identifies underlying assumptions and draws well-reasoned conclusions from available evidence.

Explains how patient advocacy can influence relationships within the care coordination structure. Presents a cogent, articulate explanation based on insightful conclusions about the nature of patient advocacy and its potential influence on care coordination relationships.

Provides unbiased, culturally-competent, and evidence-based recommendations for patient-centered care. Draws rational, fully-justified conclusions based on an insightful synthesis of credible evidence.

Identifies opportunities for cross-cultural training in clinical team development and implementation. Exhibits insight into, and impartial consideration of, the benefits and limitations of such training in specific circumstances.

Writes clearly and concisely. Grammar and mechanics are error-free.

Supports main points, claims, and conclusions with relevant, credible, and convincing evidence. Combines the skillful application of error-free source citations with a perceptive and accurate synthesis of the evidence.