Attica Memorial's Fate: Deciding the Ingelson Burn Center - Essay Sample

Introduction

When the Delphi Hospital was closed down, the executives of Attica Memorial opted to purchase out the institution which included the Ingelson Burn Center. The center is referred to as "Center of Excellence" since it can trigger superior outcomes. However, this was not the reality as the outcome was quite different.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Deciding the Fate of the Ingelson Burn Center

The fate of this burn center can be decided on three outcomes. These are keeping the current location, relocating it to another area, or simply shutting it down. The Ingelson Burn Center's strong reputation presented great potential for branding for Attica Memorial. It is the reason why many patients preferred the institution. However, the financial data in the FY2000 and FY2001 were showing a great decrease (Eng-Suess & Myrtle, 2004). The dramatic impact that has been predicted with the loss of the State Children Services status makes it irresponsible for this institution to support the program.

In addition to these financial implications, competition is also another threat. There has been stiff competition between the Ingelson Burn Center and the University Hospital's burn center. Although the Attic Memorial Hospital wanted to focus on the branding of the center, burn incidents had been decreasing for the past three years (Eng-Suess & Myrtle, 2004). Also, there was an issue in terms of obtaining compensation for staff. Since the cost of treatment was quite high, many individuals would prefer to be referred elsewhere to avoid high treatment fees (Sun & Cheng, 2015). Lastly, how physicians view this center is also important. The expectation that the large blocks of OR would be preserved for a specified amount of time each week triggered negative feelings from other surgeons (Eng-Suess & Myrtle, 2004).

Comparing the Alternatives

Maintaining the current state will be beneficial as the SCS status will be maintained. It will prevent a need for building a new burn center at the East campus. The reputation of the center will, therefore, not be compromised (Huang, Dyerson, Wu & Harindranath, 2015). The fire departments will continue preferring this institution to many others. Also, the contribution margin of $232, 745 will not be lost (Eng-Suess & Myrtle, 2004). However, moving it to the West will need a lot of input and hard work. Many inpatient departments will need to be coordinated (Milani, 2016). Besides, it will create a need for departments that are already existent, thereby leading to inefficient use of available resources.

Relocation, on the other hand, will enable a full continuum burn care services. The branding as a center of excellence will be easily translated into the departments as they will be able to support the center effectively in the new location (Eng-Suess & Myrtle, 2004). The transfer will enable a streamlined operation through the training of staff and redistribution to other areas that direly need the resources. Duplicated departments at both campuses will be dealt with as well (Furdek, 2012). This relocation may also maintain a relationship with the fire departments if proper marketing is done. However, this relocation means extra costs and the disruption of existing facilities to make way for construction. The financial costs also represent a complete loss. The current surgeons may experience job dissatisfaction, thereby leading to employee shortage (O'Neill, 2009).

Lastly, closing down is mainly advantageous because of the possibility of redirecting funds to other sectors (Akhter, Sieger & Chirico, 2016). The financial impact is eliminated, as well as the OR block time. The community will not be impacted by this close down since competitors will cater to the patients (Huang et al., 2015). However, there is a disadvantage in the sense that the revenues generated through this center will be lost (Eng-Suess & Myrtle, 2004). Also, the brand power of the hospital will be lost.

Conclusion

Considering the three options, I recommend the closing down of the institution. The Hospital cannot suffer any more financial implications. The current employees and physicians will be lost if at all the center is maintained. The Hospital should focus on other aspects that will also bring in revenue, other than the burn center.

References

Akhter, N., Sieger, P., & Chirico, F. (2016). If we can't have it, then no one should: Shutting Down Versus Selling in Family Business Portfolios. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 371-394. doi: 10.1002/sej.1237

Eng-Suess, B., & Myrtle, R. (2004). Attica Memorial Hospital: The Ingelson Burn Center. Resource Utilization and Control. 299-315.

Furdek, J. (2012). G. LeBlanc Corporation, Relocating A Facility. Journal Of Business Case Studies (JBCS), 8(5), 489-492. doi: 10.19030/jbcs.v8i5.7203

Huang, K., Dyerson, R., Wu, L., & Harindranath, G. (2015). From Temporary Competitive Advantage to Sustainable Competitive Advantage. British Journal Of Management, 26(4), 617-636. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12104

Milani, S. (2016). The Impact of Environmental Policy Stringency on Industrial R&D Conditional on Pollution Intensity and Relocation Costs. Environmental And Resource Economics, 68(3), 595-620. doi: 10.1007/s10640-016-0034-2

O'Neill, J. (2009). Relocating Employees Overseas: Beyond Cost Projection and Into the World of Cost Modeling. Compensation & Benefits Review, 41(3), 55-60. doi: 10.1177/0886368709334324

Sun, J., & Cheng, G. (2015). The Relocation Planning for Shanghai Distribution Center of Express Company. The Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal, 9(1), 704-710. doi: 10.2174/1874110x01509010704