Professional Communication and Leadership in Healthcare
- Situation Description: the conflict entailed prioritizing tasks while attending to patients. My patient was very emotional, and I attempted to help him out through consolation. However, my co-worker needed a helping hand in handling another very urgent patient. He was mad at me for straying from my responsibilities and compromising with the situation of the patient. In this context, I regressed from my duty, and he was right to call me out.
- Realized that things were going south during the conversation when he rained his tone. I hate people raising their voices at me, and I felt offended for that reason. He is my buddy, and we usually do a lot of stuff together. However, in this particular scenario, he seemed different and agitated. When I observed this, I realized things were not okay, and I moved quickly to calm him down.
- I reacted in a manner that the disagreement could not escalate into a physical confrontation. I usually like maintaining a cool head, something that works for me most of the time. However, I do not like someone raising their voice at me. So when he shouted, I felt offended. At that very time, I could not figure out what he was up to until he explained himself out.
- I understood his frustrations, and I was determined to ensure that the misunderstanding did not escalate. I explained my situation with the patient to him, and we buried the hatchet. It was a small altercation, but it served to remind me of the importance of sticking to my lane. It is part of our work to be strict with our obligations.
- The Conversation Meter. I was at the sincerity level while he was on the authenticity level. I was sincere with him that it is difficult to see patients suffer and leave them there, knowing there is no one to help them. I wanted to make him understand the situation I was caught in. He was authentic in whatever he was telling me. He also wanted me to understand the importance of being true to the code of conduct.
- Feelings were the most apparent evidence that I was at the sincerity stage. For instance, I knew that I was morally right in what I did, but in terms of the ethics of practice, I was wrong. However much I was sincere; I was afraid of the implications of my actions. For him, he wanted his point known that it was a fact no healthcare giver should compromise with the patients. That is why I felt offended, but he felt confident about what he was doing at the moment.
- Tone also was a strong indication that nobody was okay with the situation. He raised his voice, meaning that he was not content with what I had done. I also retaliated unpleasantly. This tone variation from the standard set up was an indication that indeed there was a confrontation.
- Prioritization of tasks formed the point of disagreement. He felt I prioritized a wrong assignment. According to him, healthcare givers are supposed to stick to their ethics of practice. Since I took the time to console the patient who was going through a tough time emotionally, he felt it was not my duty to do that. I also thought it was okay to help them overcome the rough patch. This conflict is conventional in the course of healthcare provision. But at the same time, it is normal. It served to remind me of the fact that we are not allowed to compromise with the patients as that will jeopardize our work.
- Applying the conversation meter. In an ideal situation, I would have reasoned with him. I knew he was right, but I found it difficult to accept that fact. If I were to be authentic, we perhaps could have avoided this whole confrontation. For instance, he could have just reminded me of my duties while I promptly accepted that failure to follow the code of conduct. Moving up the conversation meter will increase the value of the conversation, meaning that we could have engaged in productive talks.
- We could have agreed on so many things. The talk could have been positive and correctional and not confrontation as it was the case here. In a hospital set up, the ideal situation is employees working together to achieve better results in the form of excellent services. I believe such a shift could have resulted in better conversational outcomes.
- This element is essential in creating value in the conversation. Ideally, a discussion should be about two people exchanging idea and not a shouting match. Thus I would incorporate active listening skills to make it even more productive. The first idea I could implement will be to listen more to what my colleague is saying. That way, I will reduce being emotional and listen to the sense he is speaking. At the same time, I will be formulating my responses depending on the information he gives out.
- More will also give him the chance to put his point across. I would also avoid prejudice. Looking down on our partners during conversations is toxic to active listening. I will consider their opinion as just as necessary. The aim here could be to help each other understand how we can work better. I would also promote other ideas that encourage active listening. In the process, I will keep off all items that will disturb my attention. Chief to the productivity of this conversation will be ensuring that we exchange ideas for a better service to the clientele.
- The conversation will be ideal for both us to understand our duties, where we can help and where it is not possible. Accuracy and authenticity have enabled me to understand the importance of sticking to the facts when arguing. Also, they made me appreciate the fact that conversations are for sharing knowledge and not a contest that someone should win. As an active participant in the discussion, I now know that I should put my ideas across as long as I am convinced that I am right. This is an opportunity to learn from others.
- Are supposed to be platforms for exchanging ideas on how we can be better in what we do. In this regard, these two elements have helped me to become a good debater on matters affecting my work. Active listening skills and turn-taking are the compasses that guide my actions at all times.