Common sense seems hard to come by. Common practice, on the other hand, we live with every day. The Democratic and Republican parties seem to be polarizing their views on public issues rather than to use common sense and honor the public trust they hold as elected officials.
I received a call today from someone claiming to represent the Republican Party. She asked if I thought of myself as a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent. Regardless of what party affiliation I may claim for an election, I usually think for myself and vote for the person or issue I feel is the best. That makes me an Independent in terms of responding to the call. As soon as the word came out of my mouth, the caller hung up. (Not a bad thing, anyway. I'll have to remember that trick for the future.)
Group think is a concept that began being used in the 1960s and 1970s. Media coverage can help polarize ideas and encourage group think. Another factor that seems to influence the process is bias towards or against the person or party promoting an idea, rather than using a filter of common sense to look at the idea itself.
Showing posts with label Public trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public trust. Show all posts
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
How do we communicate value in a way that invites trust and openness?
The media is communicating that "our economy is coming back." At the same time there is still double-digit unemployment. The percent of growth of consumer buying (especially in the "back to school" season) was very low and was still growth.
As we invite others to collaborate and share value, we are challenged in choosing the most effective ways to build trust and openness with these people. This can be even more challenging for business leaders in that many do not want anyone else to be aware that they could use some outside help. (Actually, we all can--at least to gain more perspective and wisdom on the issues we are dealing with.)
Digital portfolios may be one way to build a bridge to communication. Two of these digital portfolios are available at the website the title is connected to. Even so, people need to go beyond the digital portfolios to begin to find the value that may be present in working with the professional offering the portfolios.
This is a topic for discussion. Blogs also serve as ways to get people more engaged with us and can lead to an increase of both openness and trust.
Let's see what's next.
As we invite others to collaborate and share value, we are challenged in choosing the most effective ways to build trust and openness with these people. This can be even more challenging for business leaders in that many do not want anyone else to be aware that they could use some outside help. (Actually, we all can--at least to gain more perspective and wisdom on the issues we are dealing with.)
Digital portfolios may be one way to build a bridge to communication. Two of these digital portfolios are available at the website the title is connected to. Even so, people need to go beyond the digital portfolios to begin to find the value that may be present in working with the professional offering the portfolios.
This is a topic for discussion. Blogs also serve as ways to get people more engaged with us and can lead to an increase of both openness and trust.
Let's see what's next.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Public or Private? Which Makes Most Sense?
In creating some MP4 videos using TechSmith's Camtasia software, I decided to post some publically on YouTube--with back-ups on TeacherTube in case of firewall problems with YouTube.
It is a real question--whether or not to give the public access to some of the information we may want to share with others. How many others? For what purpose?
One of my videos is of a presentation I made called Using Audio Books to Improve Reading and Academic Performance. That's the video I was working on yesterday. It's up today on my website at http://www.joelmonty.net/education/education.htm. (My computer may have been multitasking while I was making the video, so I'll have to double check to make sure that the audio is well synchronized with the video throughout.) I may try to put that video on TeacherTube later because I want as many teachers to access the presentation as possible. The information is important.
That's a major key for me to keep in mind. Who do I want to have access to material I make available and why? What do I need to do to preserve my privacy and copyright on the materials I share? Both of these are decisions to be made on a daily basis.
I have another research paper recently published that I need to turn into a presentation. It is about working with "reluctant" English language learners (ELLs) and encouraging them to produce higher quality in the classroom. I'd like for that to be a video on TeacherTube as well.
It's amazing how many hours are required to keep these things going and available for others to make use of.
It is a real question--whether or not to give the public access to some of the information we may want to share with others. How many others? For what purpose?
One of my videos is of a presentation I made called Using Audio Books to Improve Reading and Academic Performance. That's the video I was working on yesterday. It's up today on my website at http://www.joelmonty.net/education/education.htm. (My computer may have been multitasking while I was making the video, so I'll have to double check to make sure that the audio is well synchronized with the video throughout.) I may try to put that video on TeacherTube later because I want as many teachers to access the presentation as possible. The information is important.
That's a major key for me to keep in mind. Who do I want to have access to material I make available and why? What do I need to do to preserve my privacy and copyright on the materials I share? Both of these are decisions to be made on a daily basis.
I have another research paper recently published that I need to turn into a presentation. It is about working with "reluctant" English language learners (ELLs) and encouraging them to produce higher quality in the classroom. I'd like for that to be a video on TeacherTube as well.
It's amazing how many hours are required to keep these things going and available for others to make use of.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Aging, Quality of Care, Quality of Life--Healthcare Oversight of Continuous Care Retirement Communities
Healthcare for the aging--a worry for baby boomers with aging parents and for young adults with aging baby boomers for parents--and a huge and growing worry for Medicare.
Hospitals, Rehabilitation Facilities, Nursing Homes, and Continuous Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) are all part of the health care system for the aging in the USA.
Much of my day today has been invested in reviewing information available on the World Wide Web comparing nursing homes, and hospitals. Medicare has made some additions to its http://www.medicare.gov website where you can choose to compare hospitals and nursing homes. The government data for nursing homes associated with CCRCs appears to be inadequate--sometimes focused on only Medicare-related services rather than including the entire range of service provided by the CCRC to include skilled nursing care.
Continuous care retirement communities (CCRCs) today include independent living units, assisted living units, memory care units, and skilled nursing care units. So far the government surveys do not focus on the overall community. Instead they focus on sub-elements of one unit. For example, they may look at the Medicare wing (19 beds) of a Skilled Nursing Facility (with 70 beds).
CRCC Oversight
CCRCs are accredited today by the Continuing Care Accreditation Commission (CCAC) which is wholly owned by the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). In many states, this is wholly voluntary and there is no mandate for accreditation by any organization. In the accreditation process, the service provider pays the Commission to conduct an in depth survey of the facility and what it offers. The Commission treats service providers in much the same way a university treats its students. Providers pay for the surveys as students pay tuition to the university for a course. Service providers may or not pass the standards to be accredited just as students may not pass the standards set for course or degree completion by the university.
This accreditation is at least a step in the right direction of allowing the public to make more informed decisions about healthcare. CCRCs are not inexpensive and a major concern about any such place is ongoing quality of care and quality of life. That's not easy to measure, especially on surveys where not enough residents may be willing or able to complete the survey. At the same time, even if they had a mandate, governmental oversight agencies may not look at (or even for) a clear picture of the quality of care and quality of life afforded at a CCRC.
We are still in a "buyer beware" situation. The information available over the world wide web (Internet) is at least helpful in making more informed decisions. The information needed may not be readily available, however, and may require some depth of research (and time investment) to uncover information crucial to making the informed decisions.
CCRC Decision-making
One thing that CCRCs seem to be doing--in the footsteps of lots of other organizations--is trying to consider themselves as either unique (one of a kind) or too similar (much like) another organization. The CCRC my mother lives in has decided to move to 12-hour shifts for its employees dealing with residents in assisted living and the skilled nursing facility.
In my personal experience of working 12-hour shifts, it is not a healthy option for anyone involved. While on duty at the Pentagon many years ago, my group decided to go on 12-hour shifts. We would start either at Noon or at Midnight and work that shift for several days (four, I think). This meannt that we would work from Midnight to Noon for four days, have two days off, then work from Noon to Midnight for four days and have three days off. While we had time off, I remember sleeping the first two days after the Midnight to Noon shift and not being able to sleep for awhile when we switched to the Noon to Midnight shift. (There were military reasons for the starting times, by the way.) Nursing homes and hospitals usually like a 7AM to 7PM shift and a 7PM to 7AM shift.
At the end of a twelve-hour shift, and even more so at the end of several days of that shift, we were not at our best. The constant switch of our internal clocks really messed people up--we react to lightness and darkness and it takes time to recover. A 34-year-old major working with me had a stroke and died after we were on the new schedule for a few months. He left a wife and two children. No one functioned at his or her best and decisions made when we were not at our best could (in an emergency situation) not have been the best ones to take. (We didn't have that problem during the time I am referring to.)
Many hospitals and now CCRCs are advocating the 12-hour day shift schedule, talking about how much time-off people will have in the course of 14 days and the continuity of care patients or residents will receive by seeing the same people on the same shifts. The CCRCs say that it has been successful in hospitals so they want to implement it. In my experience, what this shift schedule does is insure continuity of worse care for the people being cared for and continuity of a feeling of jet-lag and frustration on the part of the care-givers. It is good for schedulers and may help in financing plans. In hospitals I have seen diminished quality of care from caregivers toward the end of their 12-hour days. CCRC's usually do not have the same intensity of responsibility seen by nursing staff in hospitals and they have their own concerns at the CCRC.
At the end of my day I am aware that I have touched the "tip of the iceberg" and have lots more to learn about ensuring the quality of care and quality of life offered by CCRCs to my family. It's also something I have to think about in my own future as well.
Hospitals, Rehabilitation Facilities, Nursing Homes, and Continuous Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) are all part of the health care system for the aging in the USA.
Much of my day today has been invested in reviewing information available on the World Wide Web comparing nursing homes, and hospitals. Medicare has made some additions to its http://www.medicare.gov website where you can choose to compare hospitals and nursing homes. The government data for nursing homes associated with CCRCs appears to be inadequate--sometimes focused on only Medicare-related services rather than including the entire range of service provided by the CCRC to include skilled nursing care.
Continuous care retirement communities (CCRCs) today include independent living units, assisted living units, memory care units, and skilled nursing care units. So far the government surveys do not focus on the overall community. Instead they focus on sub-elements of one unit. For example, they may look at the Medicare wing (19 beds) of a Skilled Nursing Facility (with 70 beds).
CRCC Oversight
CCRCs are accredited today by the Continuing Care Accreditation Commission (CCAC) which is wholly owned by the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). In many states, this is wholly voluntary and there is no mandate for accreditation by any organization. In the accreditation process, the service provider pays the Commission to conduct an in depth survey of the facility and what it offers. The Commission treats service providers in much the same way a university treats its students. Providers pay for the surveys as students pay tuition to the university for a course. Service providers may or not pass the standards to be accredited just as students may not pass the standards set for course or degree completion by the university.
The CCAC was acquired by the CARF in 2003 and is the nation's only accrediting body for CCRCs and other types of continuums of care referred to by the commissions as "aging services networks." (You can see more detail on the CCAC website listed above.)
This accreditation is at least a step in the right direction of allowing the public to make more informed decisions about healthcare. CCRCs are not inexpensive and a major concern about any such place is ongoing quality of care and quality of life. That's not easy to measure, especially on surveys where not enough residents may be willing or able to complete the survey. At the same time, even if they had a mandate, governmental oversight agencies may not look at (or even for) a clear picture of the quality of care and quality of life afforded at a CCRC.
We are still in a "buyer beware" situation. The information available over the world wide web (Internet) is at least helpful in making more informed decisions. The information needed may not be readily available, however, and may require some depth of research (and time investment) to uncover information crucial to making the informed decisions.
CCRC Decision-making
One thing that CCRCs seem to be doing--in the footsteps of lots of other organizations--is trying to consider themselves as either unique (one of a kind) or too similar (much like) another organization. The CCRC my mother lives in has decided to move to 12-hour shifts for its employees dealing with residents in assisted living and the skilled nursing facility.
In my personal experience of working 12-hour shifts, it is not a healthy option for anyone involved. While on duty at the Pentagon many years ago, my group decided to go on 12-hour shifts. We would start either at Noon or at Midnight and work that shift for several days (four, I think). This meannt that we would work from Midnight to Noon for four days, have two days off, then work from Noon to Midnight for four days and have three days off. While we had time off, I remember sleeping the first two days after the Midnight to Noon shift and not being able to sleep for awhile when we switched to the Noon to Midnight shift. (There were military reasons for the starting times, by the way.) Nursing homes and hospitals usually like a 7AM to 7PM shift and a 7PM to 7AM shift.
At the end of a twelve-hour shift, and even more so at the end of several days of that shift, we were not at our best. The constant switch of our internal clocks really messed people up--we react to lightness and darkness and it takes time to recover. A 34-year-old major working with me had a stroke and died after we were on the new schedule for a few months. He left a wife and two children. No one functioned at his or her best and decisions made when we were not at our best could (in an emergency situation) not have been the best ones to take. (We didn't have that problem during the time I am referring to.)
Many hospitals and now CCRCs are advocating the 12-hour day shift schedule, talking about how much time-off people will have in the course of 14 days and the continuity of care patients or residents will receive by seeing the same people on the same shifts. The CCRCs say that it has been successful in hospitals so they want to implement it. In my experience, what this shift schedule does is insure continuity of worse care for the people being cared for and continuity of a feeling of jet-lag and frustration on the part of the care-givers. It is good for schedulers and may help in financing plans. In hospitals I have seen diminished quality of care from caregivers toward the end of their 12-hour days. CCRC's usually do not have the same intensity of responsibility seen by nursing staff in hospitals and they have their own concerns at the CCRC.
At the end of my day I am aware that I have touched the "tip of the iceberg" and have lots more to learn about ensuring the quality of care and quality of life offered by CCRCs to my family. It's also something I have to think about in my own future as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
