Collaborative Practice Essay Example

Collaborative Practice Essay Professional Understanding Collaborative practice (Sadler 2004) is at the forefront of health and social care training. For me, like many nursing students, the first steps in collaborative practice were the IPL (interprofessional learning) modules at university. This has been described as two or more professions being taught together as away of cultivating collaborative practice (Caipe. 2010). These modules consisted of student nurses studying different fields, OT’s, radiographers and midwifes. This was the first opportunity I had to meet other professions, who as in any project are the ones who collaborate not the institutions (UKCR 2007). Since then all the IPL modules I have completed have been with adult nursing and midwifery students, unfortunately these groups tend to keep together in there sub groups rather than as a multi-professional group. A lack of understanding of other professional pathways can lead to missed opportunities. Day(2007) states, by having a clear understanding of each others responsibilities and roles we become more effective, with members providing different but complimentary skills. When I compared this to what I saw in practice I noticed similarities. Within our IPL groups, I started to recognise the other pathway roles and responsibilities. Now as a second year student I realise I could have made more of this. Maybe this was because it was the first year or maybe because the students didn’t know there own roles and therefore couldn’t explain them to the other members of each group. On reflection I found at such an early stage it was difficult to understand what my role was and as the aim of the group work was to finish exercises, mine and the groups focus was task related. We will write a custom essay sample on Collaborative Practice specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Collaborative Practice specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Collaborative Practice specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer A vital part of a nurses pre-registration education is good quality practice learning (NMC 2008) and by working alongside other professions exposes students to experiences greatly valued by patients(Johnson et al 2009). The IPL modules emphasised developing an understanding of the dynamics of working within groups of different professionals. Areas we were encouraged to explore were awareness of other people’s perspectives, whether team members (Tuckman 1965) or patients. As healthcare is constantly evolving, boundaries can get blurred and roles and responsibilities change. To help me as a nurse I need to understand my role within the larger healthcare environment and not forget that the service user is at the centre of all we do. Reflecting on my first modules and placements I can see how far I have come, but also realise how much better I could do the same things now. Having experienced shared experiences with other professionals and service users, has helped to make me a better student nurse now. A benefit of the team approach is the support that can be offered and the joint decision making (Bond 2008). I have witnessed nurses in practice contacting other professions for patient advice and notifying different agencies of change. While role and responsibilities need to be defined, challenges and tasks can be shared (Davis 2009). Hall and Weaver (2001) showed that the introduction of collaboration, communication and congruence improved the quality of care provided. Whatever the goals of the team or group they must be defined so everyone is aiming for the same target ( Edwards 2008). Within the tasks completed in the IPL modules, the strong emphasis on communication appeared to be the single most important factor. As Benner (et al. 1996) theorised, for the development of expert clinical reasoning thought and skill acquisition are essential. So working alongside other professions could be seen as advantageous for the pooling of resources and expertise, aiding in the decision making process. An example of this is when an elderly lady who was clearly upset after undergoing a multitude of investigations. My mentor explained the reasons behind them in a factual empathetic way, alleviating some of her worry. If she hadn’t known other professions roles and aims she could not have provided this understandable view. As Shaw (2005) suggests clear direction from staff can help support patients and their families. Too develop my understanding of how other professionals work, I will focus on IPL group work and listen to others perspectives. During future clinical placements I will try and spend time with other professions and see how they operate as a service provider. From this I will be able to gain a greater understanding of patient care. This collaboration between disciplines and the resulting improvement for the patient was identified by Hill (2006). Since I have started working within the NHS over the last year, I have had more opportunities to work with members of different professions both in the NHS and voluntary sector. This experience has helped me develop a better understanding of how patient care is made up of a multitude of smaller parts. Word count 779 Second Patch. Team Working By using the artwork of the fantastic four (John Haward 2001) Appendix 1, I will explore how a team is different from a group. For this I will describe an award given to me as part of a team while working in a nurse led minor injury unit (MIU). By comparing the differences I shall highlight what makes a team effective rather than a collection of people. A group as Blanchard (2005) states, does not necessarily constitute a team and by working at an MIU I can understand how this can be true. The MIU was run by two senior nurse practitioners skilled in assessing patients and experienced in calling in particular specialists, if required. The unit had back up on site, supported by phone and video link. For staff dedication, increase in patient numbers and satisfaction the team was nominated for a ‘STARS’ award within the trust. Bond (2008) describes a co-operative group who acknowledge each others contributions as a team. Like the fantastic four there was four main staff in the MIU. It wasn’t till we were nominated for an achievement reward I understood how we were a team. Being a care support worker I initially felt that I was not part of the award, and only agreed to go to the award ceremony as support for my clinical lead. It was him who made me realise that I was an important part of the team and it made me feel good that I had worked hard and enabled the nurse practitioners to concentrate on their roles. I had always enjoyed working within the team and now I felt really proud. Maybe the team functioned well because we knew each others roles and responsibilities. Reis and Gable (2003) promotes the need to sustain positive relationships in organisations. I felt we came across as trustworthy and approachable, for a service user this is something a healthcare professional should always be. Like the fantastic four we worked well together. Davis (2009) suggests a team is group of people linked by a common purpose. The fantastic four, like a multidisciplinary team bring there own unique skills to the mix. Even though there skills are very different they have common goals which motivate them as a team (Adler et al 2003). Like the MIU team there strength is most potent when they work together . The members of the MIU have acquired their skills from education, training, working and following policy and guidelines. While the fantastic four received their skills by going through a cloud of electrically charged space dust. By working as a team there understanding of each other develops. In healthcare when we lack the understanding of another team members role we can sometimes duplicate a task or even miss it which is detrimental to the service user. Like the fantastic four conflicts can arise when values and priorities differ, in the MIU, this could undermine cohesion (Hann et al 2007) and become a barrier in maintaining team spirit. Lyubomirsky (et al 2005) agrees when explaining the need for negotiation and conflict resolution, less conflict more cooperation. Unlike the fantastic four who thrive on unknown situations, the MIU memebers who are informed, familiar with guidelines and equiptment try to minimise the unknown for the patient (Saxon et al 2000). Small teams as Holmstrom (1982) suggests are better at observing colleagues nd sharing information. Members of a team need to create an environment were members can realise their own potential (Wheelan 2010). Common values and goals are not only the values that healthcare professionals have in there delivery of care but also the glue for holding them together. The fantastic four have an unofficial leader, like the clinical lead that coordinate the care. With reflection I can n ow see that the relationship, friendship and social bonding that we formed at work spilled over into our external life. These relationships had a positive effect on performance in the unit. Job satisfaction is associated with better performance in organizations (Patterson et al 2004). Unlike the fantastic four who rush into stressful situations, team work within the unit was based around communication and the reduction of stress and the pressure of the working environment (Atwal Caldwell, 2005). The fantastic four are forever adapting in there never ending struggle with evil. Too adapt they need to communicate well (Hargie Dickson 2004). Communication within the MIU was vital, especially when dealing with other professional bodies. In future I will try to remember the lessons I have learnt, not only in my communication within the team but with the service user. The teams goal was to deliver effective care safely, Edwards (2008) states every team member has a role in the promotion of safe practice. Unlike the fantastic four who seem to thrive on dangerous situations, Staines (2009) suggests that team members are responsible for identifying issues involving patient safety. While Cromwell ( 2000) detailed the value of co-operation and smooth running within healthcare teams. Word count 806 Third patch. The collaborative approach to care incorporates sharing not only the workload, the decision making but the collective responsibilities(Xyrichis and Ream 2008). In the previous patches, reflection was used to discuss professional roles and responsibilites and the benefits of effective team work. The following review will incorporate these and analyse how relationships and communication within collaborative practice can also help the service user. Care does not evolve around just the medical issues, to be holistic other issues have to be factored in and one profession on there own may not provide this. Complex is one way of describing relationships within collaborative practice (DAmour Oandasan, 2005). Group relationships rarely remain static, members therefore need skills to develop, change and evolve over time (Lindeke Sieckert, 2005). Interprofessional education is seen as key in the building of the skills (Maton, Perkins, Saegert, 2006). Students of two or more professionals associated with health or social care, engaged in learning with, from and about each other is one definition of interprofessional education (Barr et al 2005). The development of professional ttitudes during health and social education, has been identified as positive foundation for later collaborative practice (Nnidun 1995). Improved attitudes about how other disciplines work and the respect of each others roles are fundametal in collaborative education (Karim Ross 2008). Claims made of interprofessional education must be analysed and evaluted criticaly to understand there relevance to practice (Young e t al 2007). Students are encouraged to reflect on group activities and the obstacles that can help or hinder effective practice. By using a shared decicision making approach perspectives from all professions can be considered in care planning (Vazirani, Hays, Shapiro, Cowan, 2005). The problem focused approach and shared decision making process are seen as ways of understanding the challenges of induvidualising care for the service user (DAmour, Ferrada-Videla, 2005). Because of this decision sharing process in theory, collaborative practice is nonhierarchical (Yeager, 2005). Within this sharing process the servcice user is central to all decisions and interventions undertaken. Support is essential in collaborative work and all participants need to feel supported (Atwal Caldwell, 2005), this can come as administrive and organisational. This has been described as of primary importance and essential for success (DAmour et al, 2005). The Laming report (2009) highlighted the need for greater understanding of not only the roles and responsibilities of health care providers, but the need of understanding of what the service user’s needs are from each agency. Effectively working together requires communication and cooperation, important attributes in collaborative practice (Baggs, Norton, Schmitt, Sellers, 2004). Other qualities required for interprofessional relaitionships to suceed include trust and mutual respect, espescialy in relation to valuing different opions and shared decisions (Wachs, 2005). Cooper Spencer-Dawe (2006) point out that role awareness especialy towards skill, perspective and knowledge of other disciplines was also an important factor. Wachs (2005) noted that literature on collaborative practice recognises these areas as being essential for positive development. Policies outlined in the NSF for older people (DOH 2001) and Way to go home (Audit commission 2000) have highlighted multiprofessional working as beneficial to the service user. Kenny (2002) suggests the achievement of improved patient outcomes are beyond control of any one member of the different discipline members. The language, culture and traditions of each discipline that compose the team may look at the service from there own perspective (Mandy et al 2004). In this complementary process, contribution from each discipline can be important and unique (Lindeke Sieckert, 2005). This could be seen as making the assumption that the achieving of the desired outcomes would not be possible if an independent approach was used (Oliver, Wittenberg-Lyles, Day, 2006). Wadsworth Fallcreek (1997) also highlight the integration of expertise and the understanding of other disciplines roles in the functioning of collaborative teams. Mann et al (2006) discuss the evidence relating to error reduction when enhanced communication is effective in interprofessional teamwork. Each member of the team must be able to understand there own role and esponsibilities, as well as recognising, understanding and valuing the others roles (Bronstein, 2003). Understanding other professions, shared values and team building are now educational techniques to enhance interprofessional working (Jones 1986). Professional enhancment and job satisfaction (Lindeke Sieckert, 2005) along with reduced burnout, personel retention and improved moral are positives mentioned in collaborative research (Ye ager, 2005). Training, resources, educational development and the use of reward incentives are areas highlighted as organisational support (Baggs et al,2004). Desire, commitment and the individuals belief that effective, quality care strategies can be produced by the collaboration process are also important (Bronstein 2003). Many barriers to interprofessional working have been documented, areas that have been highlighted include terminology(Crouch Johnson 2003). If we are not speaking the same language, then we are not communicating at the best of our capacity. For effective communication Cooper Spencer-Dawe (2006) suggest verbal and non-verbal information needs to be conveyed between individuals. DAmour et al (2005) describe this as ‘open communication’. Managing conflict, negotiating techniques and respecting other viewpoints are essential skills for effective communication ( Hall 2005). For succesful collaboration, ‘deliberate action’ is term used to desribe the practice, maintaining and effort required (Cooper Spencer-Dawe, 2006). This could suggest that all aspects of care could be covered, producing a more holistic approach for the service user. But there maybe a flaw in this idea if one or more disciplines dominate the decision process, or other members feel there ideas are not heard (Kenny 2002 a). Enhanced patient care and quality of the care provided are areas that have been positively identified by service users(Lindeke Sieckert, 2005). This cordination of services has positively enhanced healthcare, benefiting patients in continuing preventing fragmentation of care and holistic care promotion (Atwal Caldwell, 2005). Statistics have shown reductions in length of stay, readmissions and decreased mortality rates as possible consequences of collaborative practice, allthough observatiional support for this is limited (Zwarenstein Bryant, 2000). For the service user, care provision can be enhanced by a team approach. The focus on a team problem solving process is designed to meet the challenges and goals of individualised care. Communication and understanding have been recognised as important factors in effective team functioning. This shared communication process also enables the service user to know what options are available to them at every step of the care process. Word count 1071 Total Word count 2598 References Adler, Ronald B Rodman George (2003) Understanding Human Communication. Fort Worth, Harcourt College Publishers Atwal, A. , Caldwell, K. (2005). Do all health and social care professionals interact equally: A study of interactions in multidisciplinary teams in the United Kingdom. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19(3), 268-273. Baggs, J. G. , Norton, S. A. , Schmitt, M. H. , Sellers, C. R. (2004). The dying patient in the ICU: Role of the interdisciplinary team. Critical Care Clinics, 20(3), 525-540. Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D. (2005) Effective Interprofessional Education: Development, Delivery and Evaluation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Benner P, Tanner C, Chesla C. Expertise in nursing practice, caring, clinical judgment and ethics. New York: Springer; 1996. Blanchard, K (2005). Go Team! Take your team to the Next Level. Beret-Koestler publishing Inc. San-Francisco, CA. Bond P (2008) Teamwork in health care: Time for review Journal of Preoperative Practice 18 (4) 19-24 Bower P, Campbell S, Bojke C, Sibbald B. ( 2003)Team structure, team climate and the quality of care in primary care: an observational study Qual Saf Health Care Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Social Work,. http://www. caipe. org. uk/resources/ (Last accessed: May 2010). ttp://www. comicbitsonline. com/2008/10/14/the-sensational-jon-haward-interviewed/ (accessed September 14th, 2010) Cooper, H. , Spencer-Dawe, E. (2006). Involving service users in interprofessional education narrowing the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(6), 306-317. Cromwell D 2000 Building spirited multidisciplinary teams Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing 15 108-14 Crouch, P. and Johnson, G. (2003) Bringing together socialcare and healthcare: lessons from ERDIP projects British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information management. DAmour, D. , Ferrada-Videla, M. Rodriguez, L. , Beaulieu, M. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 5(Suppl. 1), 116-131. DAmour, D. , Oandasan, I. (2005 a). Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: An emerging concept. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(Suppl. 1), 8-20. Day J (2006) Interprofessional Working. An Essential Guide forHealth- and Social-CareProfessionals. Nelson Thornes,Cheltenham. Davis,B(2209). 97 Things Every Project Manager Should Know: Collective Wisdom from the Experts. Beijing: OReilly Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N. (2005) Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Edwards P (2008). Ensuring correct site surgery Journal of Preoperative Practice 18 (4) 168-171 Hargie O Dickson D (2004) Skilled Interpersonal Communication :Research, Theory and Practice. London, Routledge Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 79(Suppl. 1), 188-196. Hall P, Weaver L (2001) Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ 2001, 35:867-875 Hann M, Bower P, Campbell S, Marshall M, Reeves D. (2007)The association between culture, climate and quality of care in primary health care teams. Fam Pract Hill K (2006) Collaboration is a competency! The Journal of Nursing Administration 36, 9, 390-392 Holmstrom, B(1982) â€Å"Moral hazard in teams†, Bell Journal of Economics, 13 Johnson M, Goodacre S, Tod A, Read S (2009) Patients’ opinions of acute chest pain care: a qualitative evaluation of Chest Pain Units. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 65, 1, 120-129. Jones R. (1986) Working together-learning together. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners Occasional Paper. Karim R, Ross C. (2008) Interprofessional education and chiropractic. J. Can Chiropr Assoc. 52(2):766-78. Kenny, G. (2002) Interprofessional Working: Opportunities and Challenges. Nursing Standard (17), 6, p. 33-35. Kenny, G. (2002a) The Importance of Nursing Values in Interprofessional Collaboration. British Journal of Nursing (11), 1, p. 65-69. Lindeke, L. L. , Sieckert, A. M. (2005). Nurse-physician workplace collaboration. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 10(1), Manuscript 4. from http: //www. ursingworld. org / MainMenuCategories / ANAMarketplace / ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Volumel02005/ No1Jan05 /tpc26_41601 1 . aspx Accessed 4-11-2010 Lord  Laming (2009) The  Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report on 12March2009. http://publications. education. gov. uk/eOrderingDownload/HC-330. pdf Lyubomirsky, S. , King, L. , Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855. Mandy, A. Milton, C. Mandy, P. (2004) Professional Stereotyping and Interprofessional Education. Learning in Health and Social Care. 3), 3, p. 154-170. Mann, S. , Marcus, R. , Sachs, B. (2006). Lessons from the cockpit: How team training can reduce errors on LD. Contemporary Ob/Gyn, 51, 8. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from http://www. rmfstrategies. com/tpp/assets/Team%20 Performance%20Plus. COG. pdf Maton, K. L, Perkins, D. D. , Saegert, S. (2006). Community psychology at the crossroads: Prospects for interdisciplinary research, see comment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1-2),9-21. Nnidun J,Osuji C. (1995)Comparison ofmedical and nonmedical student attitudes to social issues in medicine. Medical Education. 28:273-277. Nursing and Midwifery Council (2008) Standards to Support Learning and Assessment in Practice. NMC, London. Oliver, D. P. , Wittenberg-Lyles, E. M. , Day, M. (2006). Variances in perceptions of interdisciplinary collaboration by hospice staff. Journal of Palliative Care, 22(4), 275-280. Patterson, M. , Warr, P. B. W. , West, M. A. (2004) JOOP Foster, Hebl, West Dawson Proudfoot J,Jayasinghe UW, Holton C, Grimm J, Bubner T, Amoroso C, Beilby J, Harris MF, PracCap Research T. (2007) Team climate for innovation: what difference does it make in general practice? Qual Health Care Sadler C (2004) At the cutting edge. Nursing Standard. 8, 39, 16-17. Saxton B, Thomas E, Helmreich R 2000 Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys British Medical Journal 320 745-9 Shaw P et al (2007) A clinical review of the investigation and management of unknown primary in a single cancer network. Clinical Oncology 19, 87-95. Staines R 2009 Safety through equality Nursin g Times 105 (6) 8-10 Tuckman, B. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin UK Clinical Research Collaboration (2007) UK Clinical Research Collaboration. www. ukcrc. org/default. aspx? page=0. (Last accessed: May 2010). Vazirani, S. , Hays, R. D. , Shapiro, M. R, Cowan, M. (2005). Effect of multidisciplinary intervention on communication and collaboration among physicians and nurses. American Journal of Critical Care, 14(1), 71-77. Wachs, J. E. (2005). Building the occupational health team: Keys to successful interdisciplinary collaboration. AAOHN Journal, 53(4), 166-171. Wadsworth, N. S. , Fallcreek, S. J. (1997). Culturally competent care teams. In M. L. Wykle A. B. Ford (Eds. ), Serving minority elders in the 21st century (pp. 248-266). New York: Springer Publishing Company. Wheelan, S. (2010). Creating Effective Teams: a Guide for Members and Leaders. Los Angles: SAGE. Print. World Health Organization (1978). Alma-Ata 1978: Primary Health Care. Report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care. 6 – 12 September 1978. Alma-Ata, USSR. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www. who. int/hrh/professionals/announcement. pdf Accessed 2/11/2010 http://www. dh. gov. uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4003066 Accessed 14/11/2010 http://www. auditcommission. gov. uk/nationalstudies/housing/Pages/thewaytogohome _copy. aspx Accessed 14/11/2010 Xyrichis A, Ream E (2008) Teamwork: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1, 2, 232-250. Yeager, S. (2005). interdisciplinary collaboration: The heart and soul of health care. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North Arnerica, 17(2), 143-148. Young L, Baker P, Waller S, Hodgson L, Moor M. (2007) Knowing your allies: Medical education and interprofessional exposure. Journal of Interprofessional Care. March 21(2):155-163. Zwarenste in, M. , Bryant, W. (2000). Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors. The Cochrane Collaboration, 3. from http://www. mrw. interscience. wiley. com /cochrane/clsysrev/articles/rel0001/ CD000072/frame. html. Accessed 4-11-2010 Appendix 1 [pic]

Battle of Cold Harbor - Civil War

Battle of Cold Harbor - Civil War Battle of Cold Harbor - Conflict Dates: The Battle of Cold Harbor was fought May 31-June 12, 1864, and was part of the American Civil War (1861-1865). Armies Commanders: Union Lieutenant General Ulysses S. GrantMajor General George G. Meade108,000 men Confederate General Robert E. Lee62,000 men Battle of Cold Harbor - Background: Pressing on with his Overland Campaign after confrontations at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, and North Anna, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant again moved around Confederate General Robert E. Lees right in an effort to capture Richmond. Crossing the Pamunkey River, Grants men fought skirmishes at Haws Shop, Totopotomoy Creek, and Old Church. Pushing his cavalry forward towards the crossroads at Old Cold Harbor, Grant also ordered Major General William Baldy Smiths XVIII Corps to move from Bermuda Hundred to join the main army. Recently reinforced, Lee anticipated Grants designs on Old Cold Harbor and dispatched cavalry under Brigadier Generals Matthew Butler and Fitzhugh Lee to the scene. Arriving they encountered elements of Major General Philip H. Sheridans cavalry corps. As the two forces skirmished on May 31, Lee sent Major General Robert Hokes division as well as Major General Richard Andersons First Corps to Old Cold Harbor. Around 4:00 PM, Union cavalry under Brigadier General Alfred Torbert and David Gregg succeeded in driving the Confederates from the crossroads. Battle of Cold Harbor - Early Fighting: As the Confederate infantry began arrive late in the day, Sheridan, concerned about his advanced position, withdrew back towards Old Church. Wishing to exploit the advantage gained at Old Cold Harbor, Grant ordered Major General Horatio Wrights VI Corps to the area from Totopotomoy Creek and ordered Sheridan to hold the crossroads at all costs. Moving back to Old Cold Harbor around 1:00 AM on June 1, Sheridans horsemen were able to reoccupy their old position as the Confederates had failed to notice their early withdrawal. In an effort to re-take the crossroads, Lee ordered Anderson and Hoke to attack the Union lines early on June 1. Anderson failed to relay this order to Hoke and the resulting attack consisted only of First Corps troops. Moving forward, troops from Kershaws Brigade led the assault and were met with savage fire from Brigadier General Wesley Merritts entrenched cavalry. Using seven-shot Spencer carbines, Merritts men quickly beat back the Confederates. Around 9:00 AM, the lead elements of Wrights corps began arriving on the field and moved into the cavalrys lines. Battle of Cold Harbor - Union Movements: Though Grant had wished IV Corps to attack immediately, it was exhausted from marching most of the night and Wright elected to delay until Smiths men arrived. Reaching Old Cold Harbor in early afternoon, XVIII Corps began entrenching on Wrights right as the cavalry retired east. Around 6:30 PM, with minimal scouting of the Confederate lines, both corps moved to the attack. Storming forward over unfamiliar ground they were met by heavy fire from Anderson and Hokes men. Though a gap in the Confederate line was found, it was quickly closed by Anderson and the Union troops were forced to retire to their lines. While the assault had failed, Grants chief subordinate, Major General George G. Meade, commander of the Army of the Potomac, believed an attack the next day could be successful if enough force was brought against the Confederate line. To achieve this, Major General Winfield S. Hancocks II Corps was shifted from Totopotomoy and placed on Wrights left. Once Hancock was in position, Meade intended to move forward with three corps before Lee could prepare substancial defenses. Arriving early on June 2, II Corp was tired from their march and Grant agreed to delay the attack until 5:00 PM to allow them to rest. Battle of Cold Harobr - Regrettable Assaults: The assault was again delayed that afternoon until 4:30 AM on June 3. In planning for the attack, both Grant and Meade failed to issue specific instructions for the assaults target and trusted their corps commanders to reconnoiter the ground on their own. Though unhappy at the lack of direction from above, the Union corps commanders failed to take the initiative by scouting their lines of advance. For those in the ranks who had survived frontal assaults at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, a degree of fatalism took hold and many pinned paper containing their name to their uniforms to aid in identifying their body. While Union forces delayed on June 2, Lees engineers and troops were busy constructing an elaborate system of fortifications containing pre-ranged artillery, converging fields of fire, and various obstacles. To support the assault, Major General Ambrose Burnsides IX Corps and Major General Gouverneur K. Warrens V Corps were formed at the north end of the field with orders to attack Lieutenant General Jubal Earlys corps on Lees left. Moving forward through the early morning fog, XVIII, VI, and II Corps quickly encountered heavy fire from the Confederate lines. Attacking, Smiths men were channeled into two ravines where they were cut down in large numbers halting their advance. In the center, Wrights men, still bloodied from June 1, were quickly pinned down and made little effort to renew the attack. The only success came on Hancocks front where troops from Major General Francis Barlows division succeeded in breaking through the Confederate lines. Recognizing the danger, the breach was quickly sealed by the Confederates who then proceeded to throw back the Union attackers. In the north, Burnside launched a sizable attack on Early, but halted to regroup after mistakenly thinking he had shattered the enemy lines. As the assault was failing, Grant and Meade pressed their commanders to push forward with little success. By 12:30 PM, Grant conceded that the assault had failed and Union troops began digging in until they could withdraw under the cover of darkness. Battle of Cold Harbor - Aftermath: In the fighting, Grants army had sustained 1,844 killed, 9,077 wounded, and 1,816 captured/missing. For Lee, the losses were a relatively light 83 killed, 3,380 wounded, and 1,132 captured/missing. Lees final major victory, Cold Harbor led to an increase in anti-war sentiment in the North and criticisms of Grants leadership. With the failure of the assault, Grant remained in place at Cold Harbor until June 12 when he moved the army away and succeeded in crossing the James River. Of the battle, Grant stated in his memoirs: I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made. I might say the same thing of the assault of the 22d of May, 1863, at Vicksburg. At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.