I recently went one-on-one with Shelly Barry, SVP of HR of Recovery Centers of America.
Adam: Workplace investigations can carry significant legal, reputational, and human consequences. When an allegation first comes in, what are the first things an organization needs to get right?
Shelly: When an allegation first comes in, we typically advise our HR managers at our individual sites to carefully document all of the information. That is very important. Recovery Centers of America is an inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment company, so we also have the benefit of having cameras in a lot of our patient areas. I realize that a lot of employers don’t have that, including other types of healthcare organizations, but we typically run and save videos that might be pertinent to the investigation and gather all relevant information.
Our site HR managers also interview anyone connected to the investigation, whether it’s the employee making the complaint or a patient making the complaint. The HR manager will work with the quality team to interview the patient, and they will also interview the leaders or anyone who observed the altercation that occurred. We do a strong job of ensuring that we have full documentation and everything we need in case it becomes a legal issue down the road. We’re fully prepared to work with our in-house chief legal officer on that.
Adam: How should an organization determine whether a formal investigation is needed, and how should it define the scope once it decides to investigate?
Shelly: Sometimes we receive information that, once I review it, may not have required a full investigation. But we still like to be thorough. The employee’s perception is important. That’s why I’m in HR, for the employees. So even if, in the back of our HR minds, we may think it probably isn’t anything significant, we still do the full investigation and keep everything filed away in case we need it again in the future.
It could become a legal issue later, or we could have a repeat of the same issue. We want to make sure it has been fully investigated and documented for the future. Even if it doesn’t lead to a formal HR investigation, we take all employee complaints very seriously.
We do a full, thorough investigation for all complaints received. Sometimes, if an employee or former employee is upset, they may send an email to me, even though I’m not their site HR manager. They may send a complaint to our compliance hotline, or sometimes they even email our enterprise CEO. We make sure to thoroughly investigate the whole situation so we know our employees are okay and our patients are always safe and receiving the best care. We thoroughly investigate all concerns that are brought forward.
Adam: How should the investigator be selected, and when should an organization use an external investigator instead of someone internal?
Shelly: The investigator should be selected based on their familiarity with the area or the person making the HR complaint. I think that’s best practice. Strong HR teams have different levels of experience, so it should always be acceptable for an HR person to escalate a matter when needed.
Companies should consider using outside consultants when the issue is larger and carries a lot of risk. Some HR consultants have more experience with union negotiations, policies, protocols, or EEOC charges. You need to evaluate the risk, whether you do that internally as an HR leader or involve your legal department. If the risk is high, you should have the opportunity to use consultants with more experience in that area.
Adam: What should be communicated at the outset to the person making the complaint, the respondent, and the witnesses, including expectations around confidentiality, timelines, and rights?
Shelly: Communication is very important. Companies should have policies that clearly explain that investigations are handled completely and thoroughly. We also have compliance policies that align with time frames for how quickly an investigation should be completed, but sometimes investigations take longer as you interview more people.
The site HR person should communicate with the person who made the complaint. They should thank them for providing the information and let them know when they can expect a follow-up. If they don’t have a final answer within that time frame, they should follow up again.
With larger HR investigations, you need constant contact with the person who lodged the complaint. As you interview more people, you may need more information, so it becomes an interactive process. You’re communicating with them, letting them know the matter is being handled, and letting them know if you need a few more days to work through the issue. HR leaders should also know that, depending on the nature of the complaint, it needs to be handled in a timely fashion.
Adam: Are there any issues that are especially sensitive and that investigators should be especially cognizant of?
Shelly: Anytime discrimination comes up, or anytime someone says they’re being retaliated against, that’s important. Some HR departments also handle payroll, and pay is very important to employees. Those types of concerns should be investigated and addressed quickly. Anything illegal or unethical is important to employees, and those concerns should be investigated promptly.
Adam: What are the best practices for communicating at the outset of an investigation, and what pitfalls should organizations avoid?
Shelly: It’s important to communicate with the person who is lodging the complaint, raising the HR concern, or bringing the issue forward. It’s also important to have email communication with that person because then you have a record. Anytime an HR leader has a discussion with an employee about their issue, I tell them to send a follow-up email.
The email should say something like, “Thank you so much for reaching out to me and bringing this issue forward. As we discussed, the next steps are X, Y, and Z, and you can expect an answer from me by this date.” That keeps us accountable. It also creates a record for the HR person to keep, so if they’re asked later, “Can you please tell me the times you spoke to Adam?” they can say, “Here are the seven emails I sent to Adam regarding this issue, and here’s what we discussed.” It also gives the employee the opportunity to say, “Yes, I agree,” or “No, that’s not what I meant.”
That is a best practice for documentation. In our organization, and in many organizations, we operate 24/7, so you’re not always seeing the employee face-to-face when they raise a concern. Maybe they’re so upset that they can’t come to work anymore, or maybe something was serious enough that we had to place them on administrative leave to give ourselves enough time to investigate. We don’t always have that face-to-face interaction, so sending a follow-up email is very helpful.
A lot of times, we do Teams calls or Zoom calls, and we often do phone calls as well. I still advise all leaders and HR leaders involved in the investigation to send a follow-up email that says, “Adam, thank you for talking to me on the phone today. This is what we discussed. I’ll follow up with you by Tuesday.” It builds a strong paper trail and holds us accountable. Now I have an email in my inbox saying I’m going to call Adam on Tuesday, so I need to call Adam on Tuesday. That’s really the best practice.
Adam: How can leaders hold themselves accountable and make sure the most important next steps in an investigation don’t slip through the cracks?
Shelly: Accountability is very important. That’s also the advice I give leaders. When a leader sits down with an employee, maybe they’re not giving a corrective action, but they’re coaching them on something they didn’t do correctly, something they could do better, maybe they’re giving a one-on-one evaluation, or maybe they’re providing regular supervision. I always tell leaders to send a follow-up email for great employees as well as employees they’re struggling with.
What happens is, in a year, I’m going to say, “It’s annual review time,” and you’re going to say, “I don’t know what to write for Adam.” But if you go through your emails and save them in a folder, you know all of Adam’s successes, the times you coached Adam, what you said to him, and how he turned it around and knocked it out of the park. Email is a great way to stay organized. We all use the email system throughout our organization, and I think many organizations do.
I probably overuse my calendar myself. When I send follow-up emails, I add them to my calendar. I might not add it as a meeting that blocks people from making an appointment with me, but I might put it at the top. I spend a lot of time in the evenings and on weekends preparing for the week ahead. I have monthly agendas, quarterly agendas, due dates, and projects I’m working on. Most of the HR leadership team I work with is very organized in that same way.
We constantly communicate when different things are due. There are so many compliance pieces required in HR outside of investigations. Nobody forgets that their OIG reports are due because I have a calendar invite reminding everybody. We have weekly team meetings with all of HR. They’re one hour, and sometimes shorter. We do constant reminders and policy reviews. We’re always trying to communicate well. To be successful in HR, you have to be well organized.
Adam: In workplace investigations, how important is organization to the integrity of the investigation itself?
Shelly: Organization is extremely important. There are times throughout an HR leader’s career when you have legal issues, and you’re working with outside counsel or inside counsel, and you need to get a lot of information together. It needs to be organized, and you need a timeline. When you’re organized, you’re aligning yourself for success.
I’ve worked with some new HR leaders who didn’t have that experience, so we developed SOPs and guidebooks on how to be an HR manager. Our way isn’t the only right way. People’s organizational skills are very different than mine, but they all need to be organized. You have to be organized to work in the kinds of organizations I’ve worked in.
Adam: Beyond being organized, what else does a good investigator need to do well?
Shelly: Investigators need to go in with a clear mind and really listen to the issue, so they’re able to get all sides. That’s probably my second piece of advice. You have to stay organized, but you also have to be a good listener. You can’t do an investigation well if you’re not listening to everybody.
Traditionally, HR is sometimes viewed as going to the principal’s office, like you’re in trouble and I’m calling HR. But really, we want to be a partner to all employees. Yes, we may do investigations, but it’s important to listen to every employee on either side and understand what transpired during that shift.
Were they staffed appropriately? What was going on outside of the specific complaint? You need to have a full understanding of everything that happened when you’re doing an investigation. You need to really listen. Everybody’s perspective is important during an investigation.
Adam: How should organizations think about interim measures while an investigation is pending, so the parties are protected and the outcome isn’t prejudged?
Shelly: That probably aligns with communication, depending on what the HR investigation is about. It’s important to connect with the leadership team if they’re not already aware of what has transpired. I can think of serious investigations I’ve done in my career where we wanted to make sure everybody was safe in the facility. It’s important to communicate the overall situation to the leadership team so they’re well prepared to handle the issue.
Does the site need EAP services to come on-site, depending on what happened and what the complaint is? Typically, our investigations are confidential, but as you’re investigating people who are involved and gathering information, it’s important to communicate with the leader, whether that’s the site CEO or operations, and give them an overview of what has transpired so they’re aware.
Depending on the type of investigation, employees may talk. You want to have a good handle on that, and you want the leadership team to understand how to handle it. We certainly don’t want coworkers gossiping or causing issues while we’re conducting an investigation.
Adam: How do you protect the information and protect the process while the investigation is underway?
Shelly: We have conversations with the key leader involved in the investigation, letting them know that we’re conducting an investigation and giving them an overall sense of what’s involved. As HR professionals, we explain what risks we see and prepare them for those risks. Typically, that’s what we do without releasing confidential information.
Adam: What evidence should investigators look for beyond interviews, and how should that evidence be gathered, preserved, and protected?
Shelly: It really depends on the type of investigation, but I can give some examples. We have employee files, and we go back into the employee file to see if similar issues have come up in the past. We keep files on attendance issues, call-outs, and lateness. We have annual reviews on file.
We also look at the bigger picture. If an employee has a concern with a leader, we need to know what’s going on with that leader. Have we received other complaints about this leader from other employees? What kind of training has that leader gone through? If the complaint is about the leader, I would hope most organizations keep a comprehensive file, not just a file that includes a background check, but a comprehensive file of complaints received and issues resolved.
I like companies that use case management for the HR function. If you called somebody in HR about your benefits, I want that recorded. I want to know that last Tuesday I spoke to Adam about his benefits and explained them to him. That’s the type of organization I’m used to working in. I realize not every organization has that, but it’s very important to look at the whole picture when you’re pulling information.
Investigators should have a good understanding of what was happening that day. Right now, I’m working in patient care. How many patients did we have? Did we have enough nurses to support the patients? Were there patients with higher acuity than we’re used to seeing? Was our leadership team on-site to support them? Did everybody get their lunch breaks? You need a strong understanding of what was happening during that shift, not just the actual complaint or the he-said, she-said. You have to be organized enough to understand what was happening culturally at the site that day, for whatever you’re investigating.
Adam: How should investigative interviews be planned and conducted differently for complainants, witnesses, and respondents?
Shelly: When an HR investigator is at the site, it’s best to do the interviews face-to-face when possible. I know that’s not always an option. But when you’re taking the complaint or concern from the employee, you need to give them the opportunity to voice their concern, repeat back what you think their concern is, and get all the information from that employee.
Sometimes we receive complaints through a reporting system, where an employee enters it into the computer rather than reaching out to HR directly. You need to find out who they were working with, who was on site, what happened, whether there were witnesses, whether there were patient witnesses, whether there were vendors from other companies, and then speak to all of them if they are relevant to the investigation.
Adam: Are there any other tips or best practices for conducting those interviews?
Shelly: The best practice is having a full understanding of what was happening that day. In patient care specifically, it’s important to understand whether we had a successful patient care model that day, or whether the issue happened because we were short-staffed, or because somebody didn’t come back from FMLA. What is the full picture of what’s going on? That’s key.
Adam: When you have conflicting accounts, how should an investigator assess credibility?
Shelly: Sometimes we do investigations where there are two different sides of the story, and sometimes you can’t come to a conclusion as an HR professional about who is telling the truth. But that can still be a good opportunity for education. I’ve done investigations where it was he said, she said, and I couldn’t really determine exactly what the issue was. But it was a good opportunity to educate both employees.
We want employees to get along. We don’t want workplace violence issues, and we always want our employees to feel safe. It can also be an opportunity to have the employees communicate with each other so they can have a successful working relationship, and so we don’t have the same issue again.
Adam: How do you assess credibility when people are giving different versions of what happened?
Shelly: In the organized organizations I’ve worked for in the past, and in my current organization, we have an advantage. I don’t usually have one employee sitting at a site with only one other employee. In healthcare facilities, there are a lot of other people around, as I mentioned earlier. We also have videos, and we pull videos to assess what happened. Our videos don’t have sound, but you can see what occurred.
Assessing credibility requires understanding what was happening during the incident and during the shift. You need to understand who else was working on site and who would have observed it. In patient care, if the complaint is about patient care, you may need to reach out to the quality department for documentation and medical records to see what transpired.
In healthcare, we have an advantage because there are usually many people around. It’s rare that credibility comes down to only two people in a break room. In the organizations I’ve worked for, there are a lot of people on shifts and at different levels, so you can investigate the whole situation and understand what transpired during the altercation.
Adam: What happens when it is only two people in a break room, and there isn’t any other evidence to rely on?
Shelly: I have had circumstances like that, where you’re not able to decide because both people seem truthful. Maybe, from their own perspectives, they both are telling the truth. In that case, it can be a good opportunity to speak to both employees separately and then together, so they can come to a better understanding that they have to work respectfully and successfully together.
Sometimes training and education need to be done. When patient care is involved, we always want patients to be safe and well cared for. But it can be an opportunity to help those two employees understand that they had different perceptions.
Adam: What are the biggest mistakes organizations make in the first 24 to 48 hours after receiving an allegation?
Shelly: The biggest mistake is probably not recognizing that the allegation has been received. That’s important. If the HR leader is going on vacation, they should at least have an out-of-office message saying who to contact, so the person has the right contact person and has someone to speak to.
In healthcare, especially behavioral health and addiction treatment, it’s also very important to obtain and save videos. Videos don’t stay saved forever unless you save them. That’s always important.
It’s also very important to document all of the information. I know I said that earlier, but one of the riskiest things is not having all of the information documented. Most importantly, recognize to the employee that you heard them, that you’re addressing their concern, and that at the very least, you’ll be in contact with them soon to get the rest of the information. It’s very important that all employees feel heard.
Adam: How do you ensure that investigations stay focused, stay on point, and don’t drift beyond their original purpose?
Shelly: It’s helpful for HR leaders to have SOPs developed for different situations, real SOPs with check boxes, so they know the things they need to ask for, and the process is easier. I’ve done a lot of training in the past to make sure HR leaders are experienced enough to conduct investigations.
We also do some auditing, although I hate to use the word audit. We review investigations anytime somebody is terminated. Those are reviewed not to make sure the person did a good job, but to make sure somebody else in a leadership role on the HR team is looking at it differently and providing a second opinion.
I’m not talking about an investigation for call-outs or lateness, but for larger investigations, having a buddy in HR you can connect with and say, “These are the steps I took. What would you have done differently? What should I have asked? What am I not thinking about?” is a best practice. I’ve had the luxury of working with extremely talented HR people, but they’re all very different. Getting a peer member on the HR team’s opinion can be a huge advantage to an investigation.
Adam: How should investigators balance confidentiality with the need for transparency and a second set of eyes?
Shelly: Confidentiality is very important for many different types of investigations. We actually have two different confidentiality policies at our current company, and I think that’s a good thing to have. One protects all employee information. So if you call me and say, “Shelly just had a baby, and I want to send flowers to her house,” I’m not giving you Shelly’s home address.
I protect all employee information, whether it involves an investigation, FMLA, or an EEOC charge. It doesn’t make a difference. I protect that information. Many companies also have confidentiality policies around patients, clients, or customers, depending on their customer base. That is very important.
It’s important to have a transparent conversation with the person making the complaint, while also protecting the information that has to remain confidential. I can’t really think of an instance where I’ve had to share confidential information unless it was a legal issue and our company was subpoenaed. I think we do a strong job protecting that.
We do a lot of training with our leadership team, even outside of HR, on employee confidentiality. It’s really important. As an HR professional, I protect employee information just as much as our nurses protect patient information. I take that very seriously.
Adam: How should organizations run a post-mortem or second-review process to check for mistakes, bias, or missed issues in an investigation?
Shelly: At the site level, our HR managers have other HR managers they can reach out to for advice and consultation. We’ve really ingrained that into our process. We’re aware that they’re all good at a lot of things, but some are better at certain things than others. They have strong working relationships where they use each other, call each other, and ask questions, not only about investigations.
For example, we have two sites in Pennsylvania. They may call each other specifically about LOA or background checks. As matters get higher, as an HR executive, I have the opportunity to ask site HR managers who are closer to the state regulations, and I also have the opportunity to ask legal counsel. I do that. If I think something is high risk, or if I know in the back of my head that it’s going to become a legal issue, I consult our chief legal officer and have that conversation with her.
Usually, my ducks are already in a row, but she gives me reminders and says, “Make sure you have these three things,” or, “Make sure you get this.” Sometimes you just need that reminder. We’re very busy in human resources. Everybody in human resources is so busy that it helps to have those check-ins with the leadership team. Legal counsel also keeps things confidential.
For me, it’s an advantage to have that person when I know something may turn out badly. I’ve been doing this long enough that sometimes, when I hear certain complaints, I know what they’re likely to result in. Being able to run those issues by legal counsel is helpful. It protects the company, it protects our employees, and it protects the company overall.
Adam: What should investigators do when witnesses have already talked to each other before being interviewed?
Shelly: That’s hard, and it does happen. Sometimes you receive a complaint from multiple people at once, and they have already talked. It’s important for the investigator to tell everyone involved that, at this point, in order to conduct a thorough investigation, it’s important that they don’t discuss it outside the process.
You may receive a complaint from four employees who have put their thoughts together. But in order to conduct a successful investigation, you need to ask everybody to stop talking about it until the investigation is complete, or until the investigator has more questions.
When I get involved in investigations, which are usually high-level, I always introduce myself on the phone calls. It’s a pleasure to speak with and meet our employees, but I say, “I want you to be aware that I’m conducting an investigation, and it’s important that you don’t talk to anyone about this investigation. We’re in investigation mode. That means if you have any questions about it, I’m the person you should call and ask. You’re not going to leave this meeting and talk with other people.” That helps you get accurate information from the employee, without it being altered by outside voices.
Adam: Once an investigator discovers that witnesses are already talking to each other, should the investigator directly tell them the conversations need to stop?
Shelly: Yes. I would ask them to stop and give me the opportunity to do a thorough investigation. The investigation will have a better outcome if they allow me to ask the pertinent questions.
Adam: How should an investigator handle a reluctant witness or a witness who refuses to participate?
Shelly: I’m pretty convincing. But I tell them that we’re doing an investigation and that it has been brought to my attention that they have information that will help us. Sometimes people are afraid of retaliation. They’re afraid they won’t be friends with the person anymore if they tell. They have to work with the person. For our employees, work is their family. I understand that.
I reiterate that the information they give me is between them and me. I’m not going to call anybody and share it. It’s confidential. But I need the information to conduct a successful investigation. I think it’s even more important when patients are involved. I realize not everyone does HR with patients involved, but when customers or patients are involved, people’s lives are involved. It’s important to provide the information.
When you work for a mission-driven company like the company I work for, employees are here because they believe in addiction care. A lot of them have had addiction issues during their own life, or someone they love has had addiction. When you say to them, “We need this to ensure we’re giving better patient care,” they usually come around, and it’s not an issue.
Adam: How should investigators build trust with reluctant or uncooperative witnesses, especially in organizations that don’t have a strong trust foundation?
Shelly: I’ve been with organizations before that didn’t have that foundational level of trust, and investigations were honestly a lot harder than they are now. All leaders need to be as transparent with employees as they possibly can, and they need to be supportive. At the company I work for now, we’ve done so much around trust that it’s easier for employees to come forward and feel comfortable.
In organizations I’ve worked with in the past where trust was absent, it was hard because employees didn’t want retaliation. I’ve had to tell employees in the past, “Retaliation is not acceptable. You won’t be retaliated against. Someone will get fired if they retaliate against you.” It’s very important that the person trusts you.
I think I’ve done a good job as a leader being transparent and understanding. I also think I do a strong job listening. That’s very important. Our staff typically trusts me. However, sometimes you’re investigating someone at a site where they don’t have that kind of trust. In that situation, you need to explain to the employee that the information they give really does result in better patient care, or a better product you’re selling, whatever your business is. You need to explain the importance of it.
An investigation also doesn’t end because one person won’t give you the information. Typically, there are other people you’re investigating. You’re understanding the shift, what happened, and what transpired. You have historical information about maybe the leader involved. So it’s not the worst-case scenario when an employee refuses, but they do need to feel like they can trust the organization enough to have transparent conversations during an investigation.
Adam: How much does the success of an investigation depend on the culture and trust an organization has built long before the investigation begins?
Shelly: It’s important for organizations to set clear expectations. That absolutely makes investigations easier. Communication is key. If it’s a policy violation and you’re doing an investigation, did employees see the policy? Do you advertise the policy? Do you review it during onboarding? Do leaders review it during huddles? Is it in your newsletter? Can employees access the policy on your intranet site?
That’s really important. We have so many policies. All organizations have a lot of policies. Healthcare probably has even more. But it’s important to review those policies and explain to staff why we have them, why they matter, and what happens if they’re not followed. Setting those expectations makes conversations much easier during an investigation.
You can say, “We’re doing an investigation about this. If you remember, in the first quarter, we reviewed this policy. How can we help you follow this policy? What tools do you need to be successful?” That’s what I mean by understanding the whole shift. Sometimes you’re investigating something that was done wrong, but maybe it wasn’t the employee’s fault. Maybe they didn’t have the resources they needed. Maybe they didn’t have the staff support they needed.
The investigator needs to understand the whole environment and what was happening that day, not just listen to the complaint. That’s part of trust, too. You can’t hold employees accountable if you’re not giving them the information they need to learn, understand the regulations, and understand what is needed to deliver the best product or take care of the patient.
That has a lot to do with trust. You need to overcommunicate the behaviors you expect and want. Employees are happy to behave that way, and they’re happy to learn new policies when they’re brought into an office for an investigation, because if they did something wrong, it’s clear to them why, if you’ve communicated it.
Adam: Demeanor can be a pitfall if investigators rely on it too heavily to assess credibility. What should investigators look at instead?
Shelly: Demeanor and body language are the voices that aren’t making sounds during an investigation. But it’s really important to listen to the words the person is saying to you. I can think of many investigations I’ve done where somebody didn’t have good body language at all. Maybe they were frustrated. Maybe they were exhausted. Things weren’t going right. They had just gotten into a conflict with someone at work. Something didn’t happen the way they wanted it to.
A lot of times, when people are being investigated, they’re disappointed in themselves, and you see that in their body language too. Professionally, you might expect people to have positive body language, but that doesn’t always tell the full story. It’s important to focus on the words and understand what the person is saying, whether the complaint was entered into a computer system or said directly to you.
Sometimes you’re doing an investigation where the situation is really difficult, and it’s okay for the investigator to say, “Listen, I have the bulk of the information now. You’re not feeling okay, or whatever’s going on. Let’s pick this up tomorrow morning when you’ve had time to think about it or when you’re feeling better.” That’s okay.
I’ve had to arrange car rides for people because whatever happened had them so upset that I couldn’t let them drive home. It was a risk. A good HR leader understands the whole situation. You’re going to have a much more successful investigation when the person is in the right frame of mind. It’s okay to listen to them, hear them out, and let them know you support them. But if they’re having a really hard time, it’s okay to pick it up tomorrow and get the rest of the information. Employees need to feel safe and respected.
Adam: What language should investigators avoid in reports because it may come across as speculative, conclusory, or legally vulnerable?
Shelly: We see these challenges geographically in different areas of the country where we work. We have designed forms for investigations that we use, and they really stick to the facts. The forms include all types of information: the date and time you spoke to the person, how you spoke to the person, and witnesses to the event.
We developed strong forms, and they’re very fact-driven. I wouldn’t want a site HR manager doing an investigation to put speculative or conclusory language in there, because you never know when we’re going to need to pull it for something that happens down the road. We really try to stick to the facts.
Adam: Once the investigation is complete, how should the findings be communicated, and what follow-up obligations does the organization have around retaliation, remediation, and restoring trust?
Shelly: It’s always best to have the conversation with the employee face-to-face. I know that’s not always possible. Sometimes, if an investigation is significant, we may have to place someone on administrative leave. That doesn’t mean they don’t get paid or that they’re in trouble. It means, “I’m placing you on leave for a day or two to give HR enough time to fully investigate this because it’s a large investigation.”
Those conversations should be had with the employee. Organizations also need follow-up. As far as preventing retaliation, we have a list with compliance. Anyone who calls in an HR or regular compliance complaint goes on that list, and higher-level HR leaders, like myself, have the names. I know if someone isn’t getting a merit increase, isn’t getting a promotion, or isn’t getting a day off, because I have the list of names and I go through it all the time.
That’s something we monitor because we don’t ever want people to feel retaliated against. It’s also important to make sure the issue doesn’t happen again. Sometimes you’re doing an investigation that creates risk for the organization, and it’s important to evaluate how it happened, why it happened, and what steps we need to take to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Do we need to work with other departments at corporate or at the site? Is it an issue that involves nurses specifically or therapists specifically? Is education needed? Do we need to partner with the training team? Is there additional education we need to review because this person didn’t understand something and didn’t mean to do it?
Providing additional education may be important. Leaders should also review issues at huddles or team meetings. They need to guard confidential information, but they can say, “We had this happen recently. It was brought to our attention. Here are the steps we’re doing correctly. This is the correct process.” They can also ask employees, “Do you have any suggestions to ensure this doesn’t happen again?” A lot of times, employees have great suggestions that the leadership team never thinks of. We should listen to their suggestions too.
