Premium Partners

IAHCSMM News

Home

Jump to Lesson Plan

CHL Lesson Plans

CHL Lesson Plans provide members with ongoing education focusing on supervisory or management issues. These lessons are designed for CHL re-certification, but can be of value to any CRCST in a management or supervisory role.

For Online Grading (www.iahcsmm.org):

IAHCSMM Members:

• Lesson Plans can be graded online using only your name and membership number
• Purchase a Single Lesson Plan, a Bundle of Six Lesson Plans, or choose one of our complete renewal packages (dues payment included with your lesson plan purchases) at www.iahcsmm.org/ecommerce/store.php
• Lesson Plans are worth 2 (two) points each and cost $10 per grading attempt or
  • Bundled Packages
    • Purchase 6 stand alone lesson plans as one package: $50 (worth 12 points if all quizzes are successfully passed with a score of 70% or higher) SAVE AN ADDITIONAL $10!
    • Purchase a CRCST renewal package: $80 (includes your dues payment, plus six lesson plans worth 12 points if all quizzes are successfully passed with a score of 70% or higher) A SAVINGS OF $20 (savings as a package versus purchasing individually)
    • Purchase a CRCST/CIS or CRCST/CHL renewal package: $100 (includes your dues payment plus nine lesson plans worth 18 points if all quizzes are successfully passed with a score of 70% or higher) A SAVINGS OF $30 (savings as a package versus purchasing individually)
    • Purchase a CRCST/CIS/CHL renewal package: $120 (includes your dues payment plus twelve lesson plans worth 24 points if all quizzes are successfully passed with a score of 70% or higher) A SAVINGS OF $40 (savings as a package versus purchasing individually)

Non-Members

• Lesson Plans can be graded online using an activation code provided during time of purchase
• Purchase a Single Lesson Plan or a Bundle of Six Lesson Plans at www.iahcsmm.org/ecommerce/store.php
• Lesson Plans are worth 2 (two) points each
• Costs are $15 per grading attempt or
  • Bundle of 6 stand alone lesson plans as one package:
    $75 SAVE AN ADDITIONAL $15!
  
  

To activate a quiz:

Members:

• Click the Quiz icon for the appropriate quiz you wish to take and have graded
• Enter your first and last name plus your membership ID number
• The Quiz will open and you can proceed to answer all of the quizzes
• Choose Submit at the end of the quiz and it will be immediately graded (a score sheet will appear as soon as grading has been completed)

Non-Members:

• Click the Quiz icon for the appropriate quiz you wish to take and have graded
• Enter your first and last name plus an activation code provided at time of purchase (note: activation codes are only valid for one attempt; please retain your receipt for reference of which codes you have used)
• The Quiz will open and you can proceed to answer all of the quizzes
• Choose Submit at the end of the quiz and it will be immediately graded (a score sheet will appear as soon as grading has been completed)

Each lesson plan graded online with a passing score of 70% or higher is worth two points (contact hour). You can use these points toward either your re-certification of CRCST (12 points) or CIS (6 points).

Mailed submissions to IAHCSMM will not be graded and will not be granted a point value (paper/pencil grading of the CHL Lesson Plans is not available through IAHCSMM or Purdue University; IAHCSMM accepts only online subscriptions of the CHL Lesson Plans.

Lesson Plan CHL 317
Managing Feedback from Group Decision-Making and Problem- Solving Meetings
[Reprinted from Communiqué: January/February 2010]

Central Sterile Supply managers must make decisions and solve problems as an integral part of their work responsibilities. Fortunately, the basic process to do both involves the same procedures: define the issue (problem), generate and evaluate useful alternatives, and evaluate (select) and implement the chosen alternative. Historically, many managers have elected to undertake this process by themselves because they thought it was their responsibility to do so. Increasingly, however, many managers, while still accepting responsibility for the task, solicit input from their staff members as decisions are made and as problems are resolved.

Benefits of a leadership style emphasizing participative management that encourages group problem-solving and decision-making are well-known. They include:

• The possibility that group diversity will yield useful alternatives unknown to the leader.
• The opportunity for a leader to emphasize the worth of employees as part of on-going efforts to provide a motivational environment in which employees can attain goals that are important to them.
• Less alternative implementation challenges since proposed solutions were generated with input by group members rather than unilaterally by the leader.

Tactics to generate alternatives from employee groups go well beyond “open-door” policies and employee suggestion boxes that are frequently ineffective. In this lesson, we will review the basics of two methods to generate participative input and two methods that can help leaders determine their team’s preferences for the alternatives that are generated..

METHODS TO GENERATE INPUT

Brainstorming and nominal group tactics are two methods that Central Sterile Supply leaders can use to generate group input about challenges confronting their department.

Brainstorming

Most CSS leaders are familiar with the concept of brainstorming. Done correctly, the process enables team members to proactively think about and suggest alternatives in a risk-free environment. However, the approach is sometimes undertaken in a less constructive way in which the group leader does little more than ask, “What are your ideas,” with more vocal members then voicing and defending their opinions and challenging alternatives offered by their peers. This approach to a potentially very useful tactic does little to encourage full-team participation and can actually intimidate some staff members who are then unlikely to respond.

To correctly facilitate the brainstorming process, CSS leaders should use a six step method:

• Step 1 – The manager should summarize the situation for which a decision is needed and answer any questions about it to assure that all team members have a clear and concise understanding of the challenge at hand.
• Step 2 – Team members should be asked to quietly and independently think about possible alternatives; there should be no discussion or interaction during this self-analysis interval.
• Step 3 – Team members should write down their suggested alternatives for problem resolution. Perhaps, for example, they could be asked to answer the question, “If you were in charge, what are all of the possible ideas you can think of that might satisfactorily resolve the problem?”
• Step 4 – After silent analysis, each team member should, in sequence, suggest one potential alternative. The team leader should summarize the suggestion and write it on a flip chart page or chalk board that can be seen by all participants. There should be no discussion, elaboration or defense of the alternatives nominated beyond assuring that all team members understand what the alternative means.
• Step 5 – A “round robin” process for nominating suggestions should be used. Each team member should provide a suggestion when it is his/her turn to do so. One person may skip a round if he/she has no suggestion. Then, if he/she thinks of an additional idea as peers continue to nominate alternatives, an additional alternative can be offered during the next round.
• Step 6 – When no team member has additional suggestions, the brainstorming process is completed. The manager should, at this point, review the alternatives with the group and make mutual decisions about duplications that can be eliminated and similar alternatives that might be combined into one with a slightly broader coverage.

Interestingly, a variation of this decision-making process called “reverse brainstorming” can also be used. It differs from the traditional method because the typical brainstorming process answers a question such as, “What can we do to eliminate the problem?” In contrast, reverse brainstorming asks, “What can we do to make the problem even worse?” While this may, at first, appear to be a strange question, its answer may suggest causes of existing problems. For example, assume that there are too-frequent recalls of sterilized devices. The reverse brainstorming question becomes, “How can we increase the rate of recalls?” Answers may include reducing in-service training for processing new instruments, loading the sterilizer improperly, and failing to follow proper packaging procedures. Analysis of these and other alternatives for increasing the problem may highlight on-going challenges with training, sterilizer loading, and packaging that, indeed, might be contributing to the high rate of recalls.

Nominal Group Decision-Making

The nominal group decision-making method is similar to brainstorming, except that each team member writes down rather than vocalizes possible alternatives. In one method, the group leader discusses the problem at hand and assures that it is understood by all team members. Then, each team member writes down one possible alternative on a piece of paper and passes the paper to the colleague seated next to him/her.

Each person, in turn, then writes down another idea he/she has not written down earlier and passes it to the next colleague. This round robin writing process continues until no team members can think of alternatives to contribute in addition to those they have written or seen on the papers that were passed. The group leader then collects the papers, carefully reviews them to eliminate redundancies and, if necessary, combines similar suggestions into one broader concept. When this task is completed, the group leader will have a comprehensive list of all suggestions made by team members and can review them with the team.

METHODS TO EVALUATE INPUT

How should the group leader use the list of decision-making or problem-solving alternatives suggested by team members? Historically, the list was reviewed without group input, and the team leader had little or no idea about the team’s perspectives of the alternatives thought to be most useful. Which alternatives do group members believe to be most beneficial to making the decision or resolving the problem? This question could not be answered because group members had not been asked. In this instance, the leader had successfully involved the team members in generating, but not in evaluating, alternatives.

Leaders desiring this additional input can use several methods including “voting with stars” and an alternative evaluation matrix to gain the advantage of team member advice.

Figure 1: Sample Alternative Evaluation Matrix

Voting With Stars

One simple and fun approach to gain consensus about the perceived usefulness of group- generated alternatives involves a technique called “voting with stars.”

With one variation, each group member is given votes equal to approximately 70% of the number of alternatives that were generated. For example, if the team nominated 10 unique suggestions to resolve a problem, each team member is allowed to have seven votes (10 alternatives [x] 70% = 7). The team leader gives each team member seven self-adhesive stars, check marks or other symbols commonly sold at teacher supply or scrap-booking shops. Alternatively, each person could be given a felt-tip pen and be placed on the “honor system” to cast only seven votes.

Rules for voting are simple: there can be no discussion, including conversation in support of specific alternatives. Team members go to the flip chart or chalk board to physically place their votes next to their desired alternative (s). They can cast their allotted votes any way they wish. For example, if they believe one alternative is clearly better than all others, they can cast seven votes for it. Alternatively, they may elect to cast one vote for each of seven alternatives, three votes for one alternative and four votes for another, or split their votes in any other desired combination.

At the end of the voting process, the group leader can tally the number of votes cast for each alternative. Then the ranking of alternatives judged to be best from the perspectives of team members will be available as input to the leader’s decision-making.

Alternative Evaluation Matrix

An alternative evaluation matrix, such as the sample shown in Figure 1, is another way to obtain team member input about alternatives generated during a group decision-making meeting. As you review Figure 1, note that five alternatives (column one) were suggested as potential tactics to best resolve the challenge being discussed. One team member (Gene) provided his opinion about each alternative relative to five evaluation factors:

• Initial cost: high to low
• Reversibility: significant to easy
• Implementation: difficult to easy
• Likelihood of problem resolution: none (no possibility) to excellent
• Customer resistance: extensive to little

Gene then tallied the points he gave for each evaluation factor and, in the Figure 1 sample, he believed alternative one was the best overall choice because he gave it the highest number of points. Note: the evaluation factors used in Figure 1 are for illustrative purposes only. The actual factors used to assess alternatives must be determined based upon the specific decision or problem being addressed. There can be more or fewer factors than the five shown in Figure 1. Also, note that the maximum number of points varies for each factor. Those judged to be most important should receive more weight (number of possible points).

The team leader can sum the total points received for each alternative from all team members to assess the entire team’s perspectives of each alternative.

In Conclusion

The Central Sterile Supply leader is not obligated to implement any alternative suggested by the team unless this was agreed upon at the beginning of the process. In fact, many times the most desirable alternative is a combination of the concepts addressed in two or more of the nominated alternatives.

Managers must, however, recognize that their previous experience with using employee suggestions is known by team members, and this will likely influence their interest in participating in group decision-making processes that address future challenges. Therefore, if the CSS leader does not decide to implement the most popular alternative or even none of those suggested, it is very important to explain, defend and justify the reasons for not doing so. Team members should be genuinely thanked and informed that their input is important. They must understand that the leader is not “going through the motions” to solicit staff input but, instead, recognizes its importance and utilizes it whenever possible.

Take the CHL 317 QUIZ

back to top