I think that you're correct, and I imagined this same situation happening as I typed my previous post. But I think the way to handle this is to apologize to the patient and to talk to the guffawing individual about situational awareness and decorum. Telling everybody not to laugh at work is the opposite of the right approach.
Well, if that is actually what happened, the patient probably didn't know who laughed, so the administrator wouldn't be able to address one person.
But I disagree. The correct way to handle a situation like that is to apologize to the patient, and then do nothing. Because something like that is an honest misunderstanding. And you can't prevent or fix honest misunderstandings. Something else will happen (a nurse or a tech will drop something or stub their toe and absentmindedly say "Goddammit!" really loudly, and a patient will complain), and you can't run around spot-chasing things like that. Well, you CAN, but you shouldn't.
So what is their role exactly?
Whenever there is a problem (a lot of patients complain, LOS goes up, Press Ganey scores go down, Quality Metrics are not being met, etc.), senior management's knee jerk reaction is usually to hire a supervisor or manager for that department or clinic. It makes intuitive sense if you are a manager, even if that's not how it usually works out in reality.
The problem is, most problems are due to larger, systemic issues. The department is understaffed. Physicians/midlevels hired for that department are overwhelmed (often because they are inexperienced and/or understaffed). The equipment is poorly maintained. There are usually a myriad of reasons for why things happen.
Now, if senior management gives the supervisor a lot of freedom to make big, sweeping changes (i.e. they don't expect results overnight, they are willing to put some money towards the problems), then that can be a good move.
However, that is generally not the case, and the supervisor is thrown in to "fix things" with minimal guidance, frequently minimal experience, and little support and/or resources. So, to make themselves feel productive, they often end up focusing on small, nitpicky things, because, again, it is easier to focus on small things than to look at the big picture that needs to be fixed. Looking at the big picture is frequently overwhelming and tiring; being able to check off dumb chores on a to-do list is easy and makes you feel like you accomplished something.
The problem is that the more they nitpick, the less inclined the physician is to cooperate. So eventually the physician starts becoming more stubborn until they quit. And the answer is, "Well, THOSE DOCTORS are just not very cooperative and stubborn. We'll just hire someone who is more of a team player." <sigh>
Remember, the better organized and better run the place is, the fewer administrators you actually need. Most experienced and qualified physicians/PAs/NPs/RNs will do their jobs, well, with minimal oversight.
<CMG liaison asshat>You know, you're
privileged to work here.
<me>Yep, and judging by the number of people beating the door down to get jobs, me leaving would leave 1.2 FTEs open every month, with you guys paying even more bonuses to have people work here.
<asshat>Yeah, but <random hospital admin> doesn't care, so stop making them follow the rules
<me>here's my notice
<asshat> *stares blankly*
Yep.
Of course, random hospital admin truly doesn't care; they have managed to convince themselves that we're all interchangeable. In their minds, there is truly no difference between, say, an NP with 20 years experience and an NP who is fresh out of school. Any doctor who has had to supervise both will, of course, say that that is ludicrous, but what does a hospital admin care?
