The paper "Risk Management Process" is a great example of management coursework. The first process entails a continuous communication and consultative process with the external and internal stakeholders. For instance, the identified stakeholders in the case include the nurses, patients, and the patient’ s family members, who are engaged consultatively to deliberate on the possible risks associated with health care. Discussions were carried out with the mentally ill patients regarding potential dangers that they were likely to cause to themselves if they did not adhere to the clinical practices that they were supposed to undertake. 2.1.2.
Establishing the context: In the second stage, the context within which the external and internal risk management process will occur is established. Additionally, the context for risk evaluation criteria and description of the analysis structure is created. At this stage, therefore, the external and internal parameters were considered to determine the scope of the risk to the patients and medical practitioners. It was established that patient’ s lack of insight and adherence to preset treatment plans expose them to greater symptoms in the hospital setting and outside the hospital. 2.1.3 Risk identification In the third, several variables to be established include why, where, when, and who an occurrence of the risk would hinder the realization of the project objectives.
Only the patients and nurses were interviewed at this stage. This helped discover that the major risk that the service provision encounters is that patients lack insight and adherence to preset treatment plans that are intended to reduce some symptoms. The symptoms contribute to hazardous health implications for the patients. This forces the medical practitioners to make decisions on behalf of the patients.
There is also the risk of bias on the part of the caregiver while making critical decisions on behalf of the patients. 2.1.4 Risk analysis In the third stage, the existing controls are identified and evaluated. At the core of this stage is assessing the probability of the risks that have identified. The possibility, consequences, and the degree of risks the symptoms contributing to dangerous health implications to the patients, and the risk of bias on the part of a medical practitioner are therefore determined and evaluated. The likely consequences of the risk and the extent to which the patients are exposed to the risks are determined.
The risk matrix was selected as a decision tool as it is suitable for determining the probability of risk, as it brings about the likely negative consequence or losses from the risks. The risk matrix is also appropriate for determining the two attributes of adverse events, such as the likelihood or consequence. It also allows the risks to be evaluated against the critical risks, high risks, moderate risks, low risk, as well as very low risk.
(Thomas et al. 2014). 2.1.5 Risk evaluation The fourth stage consists of comparing the determined degrees of risks against predetermined criteria. A balance between negative consequence and likely advantages is determined to allow decision-making on the type and level of treatment needed, as well as the priorities. For instance, the risk of inability by patients to comply with the clinical plans set for their healing and their lack of insight are assessed. The mentally ill patients who are at a high risk of causing harmful effects are also isolated and the risk management procedures applied to them.
Duijm, N 2015, “Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices,” Safety Science, vol 76, 21–31
Food and Drug Administration 2014, Standardizing and evaluating risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), reviewed 12 May 2016,
Pooter, M 2013, 10 Ways to improve risk management, viewed 11 May 2016,
Qaseem, A, Snow, V, Fitterman, N, Hornbrake, R, Lawrence, A, Smetana, G, Weiss, K, Owens, D 2006, "Risk Assessment for and Strategies To Reduce Perioperative Pulmonary Complications for Patients Undergoing Noncardiothoracic Surgery: A Guideline from the American College of Physicians," Annals of Internal Medicine, vol 144 no 8, pp.575-580
Sai Global 2007, Risk Management Guidelines Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004, viewed 11 May 2016,
Security Standards Council 2012, Information Supplement: PCI DSS Risk Assessment Guidelines, viewed 12 May 2016,
Thomas, P, Bratvoid, R & Bickel, E 2014, "The Risk of Using Risk Matrices," Society of Petroleum Engineers, viewed 11 May 2016,