The chief operating officer (COF) plays a key role in the development and implementation of various organizational processes in a healthcare organization. The COF has a complex and challenging role while opening a new ambulatory care centre in the city for his/her organization. The COF would have an option to opt for professional autonomy, social contract, or free market perspective to design the entire workflow process and structure for the new centre (Patterson, et al. 2015).
The practice of social contract has its many benefits and disadvantages. It provides a widespread assessment of the society the needs of the people and the rationale to developing a new system, program, or process. The COF in this case it aiming to developing a new ambulatory care centre in a new city which is not only challenging but requires comprehensive research and the needs of the people (Harris, et al. 2014). Sine the COF would be initiating a new ambulatory care in a new city, the social contract would enable him/her to understand the different needs of people, the services that people seek in the city, and the kind of infrastructure required to cater to the large number of people in the city. healthcare industry has widely accepted social contract as the new norm to healthcare accessibility and accountability. It bridges the gap between the patient and the healthcare organization/provider (Nimita & Carol 2014). In a recent review, a researcher stated that medical professionalism is closely associated with the context of social contact since it provides a broader picture of social obligation, morale ethics, and identification of false expectations (Reid. 2011).
In context to the ambulatory care centre in the new city, the social contract perspective to develop the structure and workflow process by the COF has its own advantages and disadvantages. The two key advantages of social contract include: (a) Enables the society to organize itself. For example, the people in the city would understand the need for the new centre and provide new ideas, concepts, and needs to the COF and organization in-charge. This helps the society to benefit in the long-run, a key to societal organization only due to social contact initiated by the COF. (b) Shared responsibilities, accountability, and responsibility. The COF initiates the social contract for both parties to hold accountability for actions taken during the implementation and developmental phase. For example, services provided in the new ambulatory care are defined by the people in the city, initiated and implemented by the organization with the help of the COF, and granted approval by local healthcare authorities and includes political accountability. This includes majority of the stakeholders in a new city and includes less risk taken by the organization itself (Sunkel 2015). The social contract may also have its disadvantages which are as follows: (a) Unnecessary complexity and accountability. Since it involves many stakeholders the entire process could consume time and often be challenging and complex. Various approvals would make the organization spend more time and resources (b) Limited rights and privileges. The organization may not have direct access to limit or expand its services. The inclusion of political parties and various stakeholders would give the COF limited rights to act, access funds, and control resources (Song, et al. 2012).
Many healthcare reforms, regulations, and laws that have been recently adopted could have potential effect on the organization, specifically with respect to the COF’s decision on adopting social contract to structure the design of the new ambulatory care centre. (a) Healthcare law in the US provides an upper hand to patients to provide negative feedback and raise ethical issues about the parent organization (b) Political parties have the right to influence the resources, funding, and services of the new centre, providing funds were raised from the party to initiate developmental activities and (c) Accountability of key stakeholders in the city could provide restrictions on the decisions and actions taken by the COF and his team related to services and other activities in the ambulatory care centre (Welie 2012). Thus, the various health policies and laws associated with the COF and ambulatory care centre was reviewed.
References
Harris, B., Eyles, J., Penn-Kekana, L., Thomas, L., & Goudge, J. (2014). Adverse or
acceptable: negotiating access to a post-apartheid health care contract. Globalization and Health, 10, 35.
Nimita L & Carol IB (2014) The Modern Social Contract between the Patient, the Healthcare
Provider, and Digital Medicine. J Socialomics 3:105.
Patterson, E. S., Lowry, S. Z., Ramaiah, M., Gibbons, M. C., Brick, D., Calco, R., Ferrer,
J. A. (2015). Improving Clinical Workflow in Ambulatory Care: Implemented Recommendations in an Innovation Prototype for the Veteran’s Health Administration. eGEMs, 3(2), 1149.
Reid L (2011). Medical professionalism and the social contract. Perspect Biol Med.
54(4):455-69.
Song, Z., Safran, D. G., Landon, B. E., Landrum, M. B., He, Y., Mechanic, R. E.,
Chernew, M. E. (2012). The “Alternative Quality Contract” in Massachusetts, Based on Global Budgets, Lowered Medical Spending and Improved Quality. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 31(8), 1885–1894.
Sunkel, C. (2015). Excellence and the new social contract for science: In search for scientific
excellence in a changing environment. EMBO Reports, 16(5), 553–556.
Welie JV (2012). Social contract theory as a foundation of the social responsibilities of health
professionals. Med Health Care Philos. 15(3):347-55.
