Case Study
A Child Dies Because of Delayed Treatment
A five-year-old child was brought to a hospital emergency room. There, he, along with his parents, languished for nearly three hours before being triaged. When it was eventually discovered that the boy was seriously ill, he was airlifted to Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, where he died shortly after being admited.
A coroner’s inquest issued 23 recommendations aimed at improving emergency care. The hospital’s chief administrative officer was swarmed by reporters as he emerged from the courthouse where the recommendations had just been announced.
“The coroner’s inquest identified 23 things that you did wrong that contributed to the death of this five-year-old boy. What do you have to say about that?” a reporter acerbically shouted.
This was a critical moment; how the administrator responded to the question would set the tone of the subsequent media coverage and determine the impact of the crisis on the hospital’s reputation.
The administrator’s state of mind would be key in formulating his response. If the threatening tone of the question prompted fear, anger or frustration, he might have instinctively avoided the issue and instead attack the reporter.
Or, as was the actual case, he could ignore the reporter’s provocation to focus on the tragic death of an innocent child, thus enabling his genuine compassion to shape the words and manner of his answer.
Here’s what he said: “We are going to look carefully at every one of those recommendations, because if there is anything that we can do to prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again, we are going to do it.”
This straightforward and candid response spoken with heart-felt conviction presented the hospital as sympathetic, concerned about the wellbeing of its patients, and willing to accept responsibility for its actions. And by so doing, the hospital administrator pre-empted what might otherwise have devolved into a lengthy and destructive controversy.
The news coverage that followed addressed the specific concerns raised by the coroner’s inquest rather than fixing blame. This approach also served the public good, leading to the establishment of more effective triage procedures.
But there’s a caveat: Without proper training, the instinct to avoid an issue by attacking the messenger will likely triumph over the preferred response of speaking from the heart.
While learning to fly years earlier, I was taught that a pilot’s instinctive reaction to such emergencies as an engine failure or flying into bad weather usually results in a fatal crash. The proper corrective action is often counterintuitive and requires acquired skills.
This principle also holds true for crises that threaten organizations. The most successful spokespersons undergo formal training to replace instinct with learned responses that are so deeply trusted that they are followed exactly and without hesitation.