Alternative Dispute Resolution in Healthcare

Abstract

The purpose of alternative dispute resolution in healthcare is that not healthcare professionals view things the same, especially when it comes to considering their religious beliefs. Alternative dispute resolution allows helps provide different approaches to identify solutions to conflicts.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to any means of settling disputes outside of the courtroom. It is generally classified into four types: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. Many have questioned what difference ADR makes compared to having a trial, but in a study conducted by the Maryland Judiciary Administration Office of the Courts, ADR had significant immediate and long-term benefits. Some of those benefits included improving party attitudes toward and relationship with each other, greater sense of empowerment and voice, increases in parties taking responsibility for the dispute, increases in party satisfaction with the judiciary, and cases settled in ADR are less likely to return to court for an enforcement action within the next year. The study also tested whether there was really a need to participate in the ADR process and whether the parties involved reached an agreement or not. In comparison to those who went through the standard court process, ADR participants are more likely to fully and completely resolve the issues in their conflict, because even if parties do not reach an agreement in ADR just the participation in ADR causes immediate and positive shifts in their attitude towards the opposing party.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can be used in multiple settings including church and consumer cases and Europe. In traditional court cases, some authors consider that, in disputes between consumers and businesses, alternative dispute resolution is more effective, faster, and cheaper. It is often argued that the Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) is a flexible and faster method of enforcement of consumers' rights and that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of applicants while preserving confidentiality and increasing consumer satisfaction. Some of the benefits of CADR are: a favorable competitive climate among providers, a beneficial impact on prices of goods and services, and stimulating the growth of the number of providers on the market. Overall CADR can be beneficial if other countries show how to establish effective out-of-court ADR proceedings, focus on the empowerment of all involved parties, and to have effective communication between the parties in the dispute.

Of course, a dispute in a church can be difficult because members come from diverse backgrounds and each has their own views and opinions about things, which can make leadership in a church rather challenging. Leadership in a church, like any other religious organization, is a volunteer or helper that works and cooperates with others in achieving the common goals of the church. A good leader shows signs of outstanding leadership among their followers and the responsibility of the leader goes beyond occupying the position but also to carrying along with the followers as part of leadership management. The way that a church leader behaves will determine if the church succeeds or fails, which is where ADR comes into play. Some of the ways that ADR can be used in church leadership conflict are: conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. Conciliation is used to have the neutral party in the church help to bring a peaceful resolution between the conflicting parties by using the element of tactfulness and display of initiative. The neutral party has to know and understand how important their role of restoring the peace is because if the conflict is not resolved if could result in the church being destroyed or damaged for the long run. When there is leadership conflict in a church, this demonstrates that the church has not explored appropriate alternative and effective means of dealing with differences within its leadership.

Now the question sometimes arises when discussing conflict, what is the best way to address it through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or litigation. The factors that determine which decision will be made between the two, are the timing and the cost of the conflict. In considering the two possible timings between ADR and litigation, it depends on whether the situation happened after the conflict arise or if there was no interaction prior to the occurrence of the conflict. Once a conflict resolution forum has been selected, and controversy arises, the parties must determine how much effective effort to produce in order to maximize their respective payoffs. ADR has a cost advantage, but ultimately parties spend less under litigation, and once the conflict resolution is set it becomes easier to align incentives. ADR mechanisms are less formal than a court procedure, impose fewer constraints on the collection and presentation of information, allow for confidentiality, and generally lead to shorter delays than litigation, while litigation may generate less spending and become more procedurally more efficient. When the conflict resolution method is determined by the parties before the conflict arises, ADR may be chosen too frequently, and when the choice is made after the conflict arises, litigation is used too often.

Overall ADR can be used, in numerous settings you just have to find out which way it needs to be used. It is always easier to settle disputes or conflicts outside of a courtroom, but often times the type of ADR has to be determined and if organizations or businesses are not familiar with the different times it might not solve the conflict. Also, the world has to become more aware of ADR because there are some countries that are very familiar with the effectiveness of using it while others do not support it but have not yet tried to use it. With so much hatred in the world, conflicts have become more frequent and organizations have to handle things that might not have been an issue 50 years ago but is ADR the way of the future for the world? I personally think that it can be very useful and effective, but like everything else, it has to be tried out to see if it is something that is worth the time and money to be invested in. ADR requires and open mind along with being able to be patient with the results that you might get from trying out this approach. I never knew there was an actual approach to settling disputes outside of a courtroom, especially serious conflicts but this has given me some knowledge about why people do not always go to court but still get issues and conflicts addressed. Alternative dispute resolution is a way for organizations to eliminate dealing with expensive court fees and exposed their dirty laundry to the public, let’s hope that we become more educated on this way of dealing with conflict.

References

1. Afolabi, O. O. (2019). Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Tool for Managing Leadership Conflict in a Church. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(4), 41-45. doi:10.1002/jls.21607
2. Charkoudian, L., Eisenberg, D. T., & Walter, J. L. (2017). What Difference Does ADR Make? Comparison of ADR and Trial Outcomes in Small Claims Court. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 35(1), 7-45. doi:10.1002/crq.21197
3. Deffains, B., Demougin, D., & Desrieux, C. (2017). Choosing ADR or litigation. International Review of Law and Economics, 49, 33-40. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2016.11.002
4. Jeretina, U., & Uzelac, A. (2015). Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Cases: Are Divergences an Obstacle to Effective Access to Justice? Central European Public Administration Review, 12(4), 39-74. doi:10.17573/ipar.2014.4.a02