Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Decision-making and conflict resolution

This page discusses various frameworks that NOHT-ÉSON partners, working groups, and members of the Planning Table can utilize to achieve consensus or address disagreement in planning for provision of care.

NOHT-ÉSON Consensus Decision-Making Framework

The Consensus Decision-Making Framework document is available for access. Importantly, it describes the process by which NOHT-ÉSON partners can achieve consensus on decisions.

Consensus is a decision-making process which involves gathering and considering diverse perspectives. It allows partners to work together to improve and refine a proposal to make the best recommendation/decision as a group. It requires a commitment to active cooperation, disciplined speaking and listening, and a creative response to conflict.

Basic principles of consensus:

  • Clarity of process and discipline in speaking and listening;
  • Respect for the unique contributions of all meeting participants that are carefully considered and used in achieving a resolution;
  • Belief that the best decisions result when the group works cooperatively and not as competing individuals/organizations/sectors; and
  • Care to create a cooperative atmosphere in which conflict is expressed, supported and resolved.

NOHT-ÉSON Alternative Conflict Resolution Framework

The Alternative Conflict Resolution Framework document is available for access. The alternative conflict resolution framework is initiated by the Planning Table only when not making a decision in a timely way (e.g., pending deadlines) is detrimental to residents of Niagara and their health care. The disagreement prevents consensus and cannot be resolved through the Consensus Decision-Making Framework.

When the Planning Table has recognized that consensus has failed/unresolved decision, the Alternative Conflict Resolution Framework will be exercised by a neutral facilitator. The neutral facilitator can be a partner selected from the Planning Table who has no vested interest in the outcome. The alternative option is to retain a third party facilitator. Utilizing a neutral facilitator will allow for the co-leads to fully participate in the discussions to express their view points.