The Quality of Care Committee (QCC) at Arrowhead District Hospital implemented several strategies to improve healthcare quality, including:
1) Educating leadership and staff on quality initiatives, metrics, and processes.
2) Adopting best practices from other high-performing facilities through site visits and conferences.
3) Implementing crew resource management, rounding, and a just culture approach to reduce errors and improve safety.
As a result, Arrowhead saw a 25% reduction in mortality, improved scores, and shared their successes in publications.
HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docxAlysonDuongtw
HS410 Unit 6: Quality Management - Discussion
Discussion
This is a graded Discussion
. Please refer to the Discussion Board Grading Rubric in Course Home / Grading Rubrics.
Respond to all of the following questions and be sure to respond to two of your other classmates’ postings:
1.
What are the steps in the quality improvement model and how is benchmarking involved?
2. What are the stages in which data quality errors found in a health record most commonly occur?
3. What is the definition of risk management?
4. What are the parts of an effective risk management program?
5. What is utilization review and why is it important in healthcare?
6. What is the process of utilization review?
Please paper should be 400-500 words and in an essay format, strictly on topic, original with real scholar references to support your answers.
NO PHARGIARISM PLEASE!
This is the Chapter reading for this assignment:
Read Chapter 7 in
Today’s Health Information Management
.
INTRODUCTION
Quality health care “means doing the right thing at the right time, in the right way, for the right person, and getting the best possible results.”1 The term quality, by definition, can mean excellence, status, or grade; thus, it can be measured and quantified. The patient, and perhaps the patient's family, may interpret quality health care differently from the way that health care providers interpret it. Therefore, it is important to determine—if possible—what is “right” and what is “wrong” with regard to quality health care. The study and analysis of health care are important to maintain a level of quality that is satisfactory to all parties involved. As a result of the current focus on patient safety, and in an attempt to reduce deaths and complications, providing the best quality health care while maintaining cost controls has become a challenge to all involved. Current quality initiatives are multifaceted and include government-directed, private sectorsupported, and consumer-driven projects.
This chapter explores the historical development of health care quality including a review of the important pioneers and the tools they developed. Their work has been studied, refined, and widely used in a variety of applications related to performance-improvement activities. Risk management is discussed, with emphasis on the importance of coordination with quality activities. The evolution of utilization management is also reviewed, with a focus on its relationship to quality management.
In addition, this chapter explores current trends in data collection and storage, and their application to improvements in quality care and patient safety. Current events are identified that influence and provide direction to legislative support and funding. This chapter also provides multiple tips and tools for both personal and institutional use.
DATA QUALITY
Data quality refers to the high grade, superiority, or excellence of data. Data quality is intertwined with the concept of.
HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docxAlysonDuongtw
HS410 Unit 6: Quality Management - Discussion
Discussion
This is a graded Discussion
. Please refer to the Discussion Board Grading Rubric in Course Home / Grading Rubrics.
Respond to all of the following questions and be sure to respond to two of your other classmates’ postings:
1.
What are the steps in the quality improvement model and how is benchmarking involved?
2. What are the stages in which data quality errors found in a health record most commonly occur?
3. What is the definition of risk management?
4. What are the parts of an effective risk management program?
5. What is utilization review and why is it important in healthcare?
6. What is the process of utilization review?
Please paper should be 400-500 words and in an essay format, strictly on topic, original with real scholar references to support your answers.
NO PHARGIARISM PLEASE!
This is the Chapter reading for this assignment:
Read Chapter 7 in
Today’s Health Information Management
.
INTRODUCTION
Quality health care “means doing the right thing at the right time, in the right way, for the right person, and getting the best possible results.”1 The term quality, by definition, can mean excellence, status, or grade; thus, it can be measured and quantified. The patient, and perhaps the patient's family, may interpret quality health care differently from the way that health care providers interpret it. Therefore, it is important to determine—if possible—what is “right” and what is “wrong” with regard to quality health care. The study and analysis of health care are important to maintain a level of quality that is satisfactory to all parties involved. As a result of the current focus on patient safety, and in an attempt to reduce deaths and complications, providing the best quality health care while maintaining cost controls has become a challenge to all involved. Current quality initiatives are multifaceted and include government-directed, private sectorsupported, and consumer-driven projects.
This chapter explores the historical development of health care quality including a review of the important pioneers and the tools they developed. Their work has been studied, refined, and widely used in a variety of applications related to performance-improvement activities. Risk management is discussed, with emphasis on the importance of coordination with quality activities. The evolution of utilization management is also reviewed, with a focus on its relationship to quality management.
In addition, this chapter explores current trends in data collection and storage, and their application to improvements in quality care and patient safety. Current events are identified that influence and provide direction to legislative support and funding. This chapter also provides multiple tips and tools for both personal and institutional use.
DATA QUALITY
Data quality refers to the high grade, superiority, or excellence of data. Data quality is intertwined with the concept of.
Assessment 2
Quality Improvement Proposal
Overview:
Write a quality improvement proposal, 5–7 pages in length, that provides your recommendations for expanding a hospital's HIT to include quality metrics that will help the organization qualify as an accountable care organization.
Health care has undergone a transformation since the release of the Institute of Medicine's 2000 report
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.
The report highlighted medical errors as a contributing factor leading to poor patient outcomes. The Institute of Medicine challenged organizations to implement evidence-based performance improvement strategies in order to improve patient quality and safety. Multiple governmental and regulatory agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ), vowed to strengthen and improve incentives for participation, safety, quality, and efficiency in accountable care organizations (ACOs).
Health information technology (HIT) performs an essential role in improving health outcomes of individuals, the community, and populations. Health organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and regulatory committees have made a commitment to explore current and future opportunities that HIT offers to continue momentum to meet the Institute of Medicine's goal of improving safety and quality.
Understanding HIT is important to improving individual, community, and population access to health care and health information. HIT enables quick and easy access to information for both patients and providers. Accessible information has been shown to improve the patient care experience and reduce redundancies, thereby reducing health care costs.
This assessment provides an opportunity for you to make recommendations for expanding a hospital's HIT in ways that will help the hospital qualify as an ACO.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:
Competency 2: Explain the relationship between care coordination and evidence-based data.
Recommend ways to expand an organization's HIT to include quality metrics.
Identify potential problems that can arise with data gathering systems and outputs.
Competency 3: Use health information technology to guide care coordination and organizational practice.
Describe the main focus of information gathering in health care and how it contributes to guiding the development of organizational practice.
Competency 4: Communicate effectively with diverse audiences, in an appropriate form and style, consistent with applicable organizational, professional, and scholarly standards.
Write clearly and concisely, using correct grammar and mechanics.
Support main points, claims, and conclusions with relevant and credible evidence, correctly formatting citations and references using APA style.
Reference
.
Is
su
e
B
r
Ie
f
C AL I FORNIA
HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION
June 2010
Workflow Redesign:
A Model for California Clinics
Introduction
Patient flow, particularly initial patient access
and cycle time, is crucial to community clinic
practice efficiency and capacity, which in
turn affects revenue and provider and patient
satisfaction.1 As a clinic improves patient access,
it increases the timeliness of patient care, and
thus may improve outcomes, and in some cases
the odds that a patient will receive care at all.
Balancing appointment supply and demand, and
establishing and managing provider panels, can
increase access and improve practice efficiency
and patient satisfaction. Moreover, effective
panels and resulting continuity can strengthen
prevention efforts, improve outcomes for patients
with diseases that can be detected early, and
help manage chronic conditions through regular
monitoring.
Improved access and practice efficiency, and
resulting clinical improvement, depend on
factors specific to each clinic — such as goals
and priorities, physician preferences, and
patient population — which together constitute
a particular practice system. While there
are many approaches a clinic might take to
address individual aspects of practice efficiency,
meaningful practice redesign requires a thorough
understanding of the practice’s patient care
processes and identification of practice-specific
strategies for improving efficiency. Such practice
redesign requires a multi-component approach,
which can be enabled and enhanced by the
application of a comprehensive, field-tested
framework for change.
In 2007, the California Primary Care Association
(CPCA), funded by the federal Bureau of Primary
Health Care and facilitated by Mark Murray and
Associates, launched the Optimizing Primary
Care Collaborative (OPCC) as a one-year learning
project. The collaborative, with 21 community
clinic teams, was designed to reduce patient
flow delays in primary care settings and to
improve clinical care. Following the first year’s
work, in 2008 the same partners organized a
second OPCC, with additional funding from
the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF).
A total of 24 community health clinics from
California and Arizona participated in the
2008 OPCC. The collaborative used a learning
community framework to help clinic teams set
goals, collect data, and measure effects.
Upon completion of OPCC in 2009, CHCF
supported an evaluation of its methods and
outcomes by White Mountain Research Associates
(White Mountain). The evaluation found that the
level of improvement varied among clinic sites, but
that there was marked overall success: Virtually all
participants saw improvements, with 88 percent
of teams reporting positive changes in at least
two access and patient satisfaction measures,
and 63 percent reporting positive changes in
three or more of these m.
Running head ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 Annotated Bibliogra.docxjoellemurphey
Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1
Annotated Bibliography
u04a1
Student Name
BSN 4008 Organizational and Systems Management for Quality Outcomes
Capella University
Dr. Pape
Due date
LITERATURE REVIEW ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2
Annotated Bibliography
We have seen that in a health-care organization there are multiple responsibilities
including assessments of priorities in areas that require attention in an organization. The
following annotated bibliography compiles a summary of the references that will be used
to prepare a final paper that will identify nursing leadership priorities at Fantastic
Medical Center (FMC) and proposed resources for addressing the priorities.
Previously identified nursing leadership priorities at FMC that will be the focus of
the literature review are (a) nursing staff turnover, (b) nursing staff competency, and (c)
medication errors of omission. Accordingly, the literature and available resources were
searched utilizing terms that included the above listed priorities and terms to reflect any
proposed resources for addressing the priorities in order to support strategies with
evidence-based references.
Additional references will include readings from the course that involve systems
leadership, organizational structure, and use of a systems-based approach for analysis of
organizational issues. These may include Lewin’s change theory, or the diffusion of
innovation theory. The synthesis of these references will help me build the foundation of
to address strategies that can be used within FMC, both as an analysis for the project.
American Nurses Association. (2010). Nursing: Scope and standards of practice. (2nd
ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Nursesbooks.org.
LITERATURE REVIEW ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 3
The American Nurses Association (ANA) provides standards and scope of
practice for professional nurses (p. 1) including the importance of ongoing
nursing education and the important role employers have in providing educational
opportunities for nurses (p. 28). The book further establishes important nursing
profession standards in regards to quality of patient care and nursing leadership
(p. 55) thus creating an important foundation upon which priorities and strategies
can be established.
American Nurses Credentialing Center. (2013a). Magnet designation for initial
applicants. Retrieved from http://www.nursecredentialing.org/magnet-initial-
designation.aspx
The American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) is a component of the ANA
whose purpose is to provide certification and accreditation of individual nurses
and health care organizations who have met certain criteria that include
excellence in quality patient care and excellence in work environment (American
Nurses Credentialing Center [ANCC], 2013b). One such designation that signifies
excellence in care and practice is Magnet designation which among many
requirem ...
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine,.docxvannagoforth
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care; Yong PL, Olsen LA, McGinnis
JM, editors. Value in Health Care: Accounting for Cost, Quality, Safety, Outcomes, and Innovation.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010.
5 Approaches to Improving Value—Provider and Manufacturer
Payments
INTRODUCTION
Payment design, coverage policies, reimbursement rules, and other financial incentives and
disincentives are powerful motivators when attempting to steer the healthcare system toward
more desirable care patterns (Guterman et al., 2009). Experiments with payment design and
coverage and reimbursement policies are currently going on in both public and private healthcare
sectors, with varying results. Speakers in this session of the workshop explored current payment
design experiments and discussed the efficacy of utilizing these reimbursement tools to improve
the value received from health care.
In this chapter, Carolyn M. Clancy details the pay-for-performance (P4P) model, an effort to
more explicitly link provider payments to quality of care. She highlights the lack of coherent
approaches to P4P and the variable success this approach has had in fundamentally changing
provider practice patterns. For example, while financial incentives for individual physicians have
shown that P4P can induce quality improvements for diabetic patients (Beaulieu and Horrigan,
2005), group-level incentives have had no impact on mammography screening or hemoglobin A
testing rates (Rosenthal et al., 2005). After underscoring that the current incentive system and
healthcare infrastructure fail to accommodate the achievement of real efficiency and quality, she
outlines recommendations for rethinking medical training, measurement, system design, and the
reward system.
Building on Clancy’s recommendations, Donald A. Sawyer identifies how the current healthcare
system stymies innovation in product development. He suggests refocusing the myopic view of
innovation on the horizon of long-term health improvements and financial savings. Reed V.
Tuckson discusses the alignment of manufacturers, technologists, payers, patients, and providers
necessary to establish a system that continues to provide incentives for innovation and maintains
an open market for the development of promising but unproven interventions. He elaborates
specifically on a joint effort between UnitedHealth Group and the American College of
Cardiology to develop appropriateness criteria for cardiac single-photon emission computed
tomography myocardial perfusion imaging—a new and very expensive technology—based on
best evidence as an example of how the interests of diverse stakeholder groups could be aligned.
In conclusion, Steven D. Pearson likens coverage and reimbursement tools to a blunt knife that
lacks subtlety in effecting value improvements, bu ...
CLINICAL GOVERNANCE: AS DRIVE FOR PATIENT SAFETY.Ruby Med Plus
The focus on patient safety is an international phenomenon. Patient safety is an integral component of the quality of care. The governance of patient safety‘encompasses panoply of regulatory processes that directly or indirectly intend to manage, prevent or limit iatrogenic events in oral health care services. The Influence of Health Inquiries on Clinical Governance Systems in a case Study of the Douglas Inquiry focus on patient safety within the health industry, which has led to the extensive adoption of the term clinical governance. This term is used to describe the systems and processes that a healthcare organization has in place that add to the maintenance of patient safety, accountability and responsibility for patient safety. The introduction of clinical governance is therefore aimed at improving the quality of clinical care at all levels of an organization by consolidating, codifying, and standardizing organizational policies and approaches, particularly clinical and corporate accountability. (Scally, 1998). Clinical governance demands a major shift in the values, culture and leadership, to place greater focus on the quality of clinical care and to make it easier to bring about improvement and change in clinical practice. Clinical governance helps in examining and measuring patient outcomes to ensure optimum quality of care (Balding, 2005).
Aligning Clinical Practice and Process Improvement for Patient Safety 2014iCareQuality.us
Implementing continuous daily improve¬ment is a standardized approach to reducing clinical variability in patient care delivery. The CLIPSE model engages frontline providers using a collaborative, peer review process, and may positively impact patient outcomes, cost of care, and quality improvement initiatives
Effect of Clinical Supervision Program for Head Nurses on Quality Nursing Care iosrjce
IOSR Journal of Nursing and health Science is ambitious to disseminate information and experience in education, practice and investigation between medicine, nursing and all the sciences involved in health care.
Nursing & Health Sciences focuses on the international exchange of knowledge in nursing and health sciences. The journal publishes peer-reviewed papers on original research, education and clinical practice.
By encouraging scholars from around the world to share their knowledge and expertise, the journal aims to provide the reader with a deeper understanding of the lived experience of nursing and health sciences and the opportunity to enrich their own area of practice
Standardized Bedside ReportingOne of the goals of h.docxwhitneyleman54422
Standardized Bedside Reporting
One of the goals of healthcare is to ensure that the patients get the best service possible while not compromising on the satisfaction and goodwill of the nurses and other healthcare professionals. A key aspect of ensuring quality healthcare is the consistent handling of patient information from nurse to nurse during shifts; information handled wrongly can jeopardize the patients’ health (Baker, 2010). It is important to implement procedures that ensure consistent and smooth handling of patient information from nurse to nurse to increase patient safety and improve nurse satisfaction. This paper will explore the merits of standardized bedside reporting as opposed to board reporting in ensuring a positive outcome and consistent quality healthcare.
Change model overview
A key aspect in determining whether bedside shift reporting has any merits over board reporting is the John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Process (JHNEBP). The John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Process is a framework for guiding the translation and synthesis of evidence into valid healthcare practice. JHNEBP has three cornerstones that include research, education, and practice; the framework ensures that research evidence is the basis of clinical decision-making. (Dearholt & Dang, 2012) The implementation of the John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Process has three key phases, the first phase is the identification of an important question, the second phase involves the systematic review of research evidence, and the third phase is translating the results into action. Nurses should use the JHNEBP process because it provides a clear way for healthcare professionals to translate research results into healthcare practice.
Practice Question
The team includes several key stakeholders who will benefit greatly from my research. Among the team members include myself as ER nurse, charge nurse, ERT ( Emergency room tech), nurse case manager, nurse supervisor, physician and hospital manager.
The evidence-based practice question that the team members will explore is "Does the use of a standardized bedside report versus board reporting help increase patient safety, nurse satisfaction, and positive outcome?" The evidence-based practice question assesses the ability of bedside shift reporting to improve healthcare provision. The practice area of the question is clinical. The practice issue came about because of assessing risk management concerns in ensuring good health practices. To answer the question, the team members gathered evidence from patient preferences, peer-reviewed journals, and clinical guidelines. The team members searched peer-reviewed journal databases to gather relevant information from previous research that could affect the results.
Understanding the merits of bedside shift reporting as opposed to board reporting is important as most healthcare organization use either strategy in collecting and passin.
PREPARATIONConsider the hospital-acquired conditions that ar.docxkeilenettie
PREPARATION
Consider the hospital-acquired conditions that are not reimbursed for under Medicare/Medicaid. Among these conditions are specific safety issues such as infections, falls, medication errors, and other safety concerns that could have been prevented or alleviated with the use of evidence-based guidelines. Hospital Safety Score, an independent nonprofit organization, uses national performance measures to determine the safety score for hospitals in the United States. The Hospital Safety Score Web site and other online resources provide hospital safety scores to the public.
Read the scenario below:
Scenario
As the manager of a unit, you have been advised by the patient safety office of an alarming increase in the hospital safety score for your unit. This is a very serious public relations matter because patient safety data is public information. It is also a financial crisis because the organization stands to lose a significant amount of reimbursement money from Medicare and Medicaid unless the source of the problem can be identified and corrected. You are required to submit a safety score improvement plan to the organization's leadership and the patient safety office.
Select a specific patient safety goal that has been identified by an organization, or one that is widely regarded in the nursing profession as relevant to quality patient care delivery, such as patient falls, infection rates, catheter-induced urinary infections, IV infections, et cetera.
DELIVERABLE: SAFETY SCORE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Develop a 3–5 page safety score improvement plan.
Identify the health care setting and nursing unit of your choice
in the title of the mitigation plan. For example, "Safety Score Improvement Plan for XYZ Rehabilitation Center."
You may choose to use information on a patient safety issue for the organization in which you currently work, or search for information from a setting you are familiar with, perhaps from your clinical work.
Demonstrate systems theory and systems thinking as you develop your recommendations.
Organize your report with these headings:
Study of Factors
Identify a patient safety issue.
Describe the influence of nursing leadership in driving the needed changes.
Apply systems thinking to explain how current policies and procedures may affect a safety issue.
Recommendations
Recommend an evidence-based strategy to improve the safety issue.
Explain a strategy to collect information about the safety concern.
How would you determine the sources of the problem?
Explain a plan to implement a recommendation and monitor outcomes.
What quality indicators will you use?
How will you monitor outcomes?
Will policies or procedures need to be changed?
Will nursing staff need training?
What tools will you need to do this?
Additional Requirements
Written communication: Written communication should be free of errors that detract from the overall message.
APA formatting: Resources and in-te ...
Assessment 2
Quality Improvement Proposal
Overview:
Write a quality improvement proposal, 5–7 pages in length, that provides your recommendations for expanding a hospital's HIT to include quality metrics that will help the organization qualify as an accountable care organization.
Health care has undergone a transformation since the release of the Institute of Medicine's 2000 report
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.
The report highlighted medical errors as a contributing factor leading to poor patient outcomes. The Institute of Medicine challenged organizations to implement evidence-based performance improvement strategies in order to improve patient quality and safety. Multiple governmental and regulatory agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ), vowed to strengthen and improve incentives for participation, safety, quality, and efficiency in accountable care organizations (ACOs).
Health information technology (HIT) performs an essential role in improving health outcomes of individuals, the community, and populations. Health organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and regulatory committees have made a commitment to explore current and future opportunities that HIT offers to continue momentum to meet the Institute of Medicine's goal of improving safety and quality.
Understanding HIT is important to improving individual, community, and population access to health care and health information. HIT enables quick and easy access to information for both patients and providers. Accessible information has been shown to improve the patient care experience and reduce redundancies, thereby reducing health care costs.
This assessment provides an opportunity for you to make recommendations for expanding a hospital's HIT in ways that will help the hospital qualify as an ACO.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:
Competency 2: Explain the relationship between care coordination and evidence-based data.
Recommend ways to expand an organization's HIT to include quality metrics.
Identify potential problems that can arise with data gathering systems and outputs.
Competency 3: Use health information technology to guide care coordination and organizational practice.
Describe the main focus of information gathering in health care and how it contributes to guiding the development of organizational practice.
Competency 4: Communicate effectively with diverse audiences, in an appropriate form and style, consistent with applicable organizational, professional, and scholarly standards.
Write clearly and concisely, using correct grammar and mechanics.
Support main points, claims, and conclusions with relevant and credible evidence, correctly formatting citations and references using APA style.
Reference
.
Is
su
e
B
r
Ie
f
C AL I FORNIA
HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION
June 2010
Workflow Redesign:
A Model for California Clinics
Introduction
Patient flow, particularly initial patient access
and cycle time, is crucial to community clinic
practice efficiency and capacity, which in
turn affects revenue and provider and patient
satisfaction.1 As a clinic improves patient access,
it increases the timeliness of patient care, and
thus may improve outcomes, and in some cases
the odds that a patient will receive care at all.
Balancing appointment supply and demand, and
establishing and managing provider panels, can
increase access and improve practice efficiency
and patient satisfaction. Moreover, effective
panels and resulting continuity can strengthen
prevention efforts, improve outcomes for patients
with diseases that can be detected early, and
help manage chronic conditions through regular
monitoring.
Improved access and practice efficiency, and
resulting clinical improvement, depend on
factors specific to each clinic — such as goals
and priorities, physician preferences, and
patient population — which together constitute
a particular practice system. While there
are many approaches a clinic might take to
address individual aspects of practice efficiency,
meaningful practice redesign requires a thorough
understanding of the practice’s patient care
processes and identification of practice-specific
strategies for improving efficiency. Such practice
redesign requires a multi-component approach,
which can be enabled and enhanced by the
application of a comprehensive, field-tested
framework for change.
In 2007, the California Primary Care Association
(CPCA), funded by the federal Bureau of Primary
Health Care and facilitated by Mark Murray and
Associates, launched the Optimizing Primary
Care Collaborative (OPCC) as a one-year learning
project. The collaborative, with 21 community
clinic teams, was designed to reduce patient
flow delays in primary care settings and to
improve clinical care. Following the first year’s
work, in 2008 the same partners organized a
second OPCC, with additional funding from
the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF).
A total of 24 community health clinics from
California and Arizona participated in the
2008 OPCC. The collaborative used a learning
community framework to help clinic teams set
goals, collect data, and measure effects.
Upon completion of OPCC in 2009, CHCF
supported an evaluation of its methods and
outcomes by White Mountain Research Associates
(White Mountain). The evaluation found that the
level of improvement varied among clinic sites, but
that there was marked overall success: Virtually all
participants saw improvements, with 88 percent
of teams reporting positive changes in at least
two access and patient satisfaction measures,
and 63 percent reporting positive changes in
three or more of these m.
Running head ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 Annotated Bibliogra.docxjoellemurphey
Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1
Annotated Bibliography
u04a1
Student Name
BSN 4008 Organizational and Systems Management for Quality Outcomes
Capella University
Dr. Pape
Due date
LITERATURE REVIEW ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2
Annotated Bibliography
We have seen that in a health-care organization there are multiple responsibilities
including assessments of priorities in areas that require attention in an organization. The
following annotated bibliography compiles a summary of the references that will be used
to prepare a final paper that will identify nursing leadership priorities at Fantastic
Medical Center (FMC) and proposed resources for addressing the priorities.
Previously identified nursing leadership priorities at FMC that will be the focus of
the literature review are (a) nursing staff turnover, (b) nursing staff competency, and (c)
medication errors of omission. Accordingly, the literature and available resources were
searched utilizing terms that included the above listed priorities and terms to reflect any
proposed resources for addressing the priorities in order to support strategies with
evidence-based references.
Additional references will include readings from the course that involve systems
leadership, organizational structure, and use of a systems-based approach for analysis of
organizational issues. These may include Lewin’s change theory, or the diffusion of
innovation theory. The synthesis of these references will help me build the foundation of
to address strategies that can be used within FMC, both as an analysis for the project.
American Nurses Association. (2010). Nursing: Scope and standards of practice. (2nd
ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Nursesbooks.org.
LITERATURE REVIEW ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 3
The American Nurses Association (ANA) provides standards and scope of
practice for professional nurses (p. 1) including the importance of ongoing
nursing education and the important role employers have in providing educational
opportunities for nurses (p. 28). The book further establishes important nursing
profession standards in regards to quality of patient care and nursing leadership
(p. 55) thus creating an important foundation upon which priorities and strategies
can be established.
American Nurses Credentialing Center. (2013a). Magnet designation for initial
applicants. Retrieved from http://www.nursecredentialing.org/magnet-initial-
designation.aspx
The American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) is a component of the ANA
whose purpose is to provide certification and accreditation of individual nurses
and health care organizations who have met certain criteria that include
excellence in quality patient care and excellence in work environment (American
Nurses Credentialing Center [ANCC], 2013b). One such designation that signifies
excellence in care and practice is Magnet designation which among many
requirem ...
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine,.docxvannagoforth
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care; Yong PL, Olsen LA, McGinnis
JM, editors. Value in Health Care: Accounting for Cost, Quality, Safety, Outcomes, and Innovation.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010.
5 Approaches to Improving Value—Provider and Manufacturer
Payments
INTRODUCTION
Payment design, coverage policies, reimbursement rules, and other financial incentives and
disincentives are powerful motivators when attempting to steer the healthcare system toward
more desirable care patterns (Guterman et al., 2009). Experiments with payment design and
coverage and reimbursement policies are currently going on in both public and private healthcare
sectors, with varying results. Speakers in this session of the workshop explored current payment
design experiments and discussed the efficacy of utilizing these reimbursement tools to improve
the value received from health care.
In this chapter, Carolyn M. Clancy details the pay-for-performance (P4P) model, an effort to
more explicitly link provider payments to quality of care. She highlights the lack of coherent
approaches to P4P and the variable success this approach has had in fundamentally changing
provider practice patterns. For example, while financial incentives for individual physicians have
shown that P4P can induce quality improvements for diabetic patients (Beaulieu and Horrigan,
2005), group-level incentives have had no impact on mammography screening or hemoglobin A
testing rates (Rosenthal et al., 2005). After underscoring that the current incentive system and
healthcare infrastructure fail to accommodate the achievement of real efficiency and quality, she
outlines recommendations for rethinking medical training, measurement, system design, and the
reward system.
Building on Clancy’s recommendations, Donald A. Sawyer identifies how the current healthcare
system stymies innovation in product development. He suggests refocusing the myopic view of
innovation on the horizon of long-term health improvements and financial savings. Reed V.
Tuckson discusses the alignment of manufacturers, technologists, payers, patients, and providers
necessary to establish a system that continues to provide incentives for innovation and maintains
an open market for the development of promising but unproven interventions. He elaborates
specifically on a joint effort between UnitedHealth Group and the American College of
Cardiology to develop appropriateness criteria for cardiac single-photon emission computed
tomography myocardial perfusion imaging—a new and very expensive technology—based on
best evidence as an example of how the interests of diverse stakeholder groups could be aligned.
In conclusion, Steven D. Pearson likens coverage and reimbursement tools to a blunt knife that
lacks subtlety in effecting value improvements, bu ...
CLINICAL GOVERNANCE: AS DRIVE FOR PATIENT SAFETY.Ruby Med Plus
The focus on patient safety is an international phenomenon. Patient safety is an integral component of the quality of care. The governance of patient safety‘encompasses panoply of regulatory processes that directly or indirectly intend to manage, prevent or limit iatrogenic events in oral health care services. The Influence of Health Inquiries on Clinical Governance Systems in a case Study of the Douglas Inquiry focus on patient safety within the health industry, which has led to the extensive adoption of the term clinical governance. This term is used to describe the systems and processes that a healthcare organization has in place that add to the maintenance of patient safety, accountability and responsibility for patient safety. The introduction of clinical governance is therefore aimed at improving the quality of clinical care at all levels of an organization by consolidating, codifying, and standardizing organizational policies and approaches, particularly clinical and corporate accountability. (Scally, 1998). Clinical governance demands a major shift in the values, culture and leadership, to place greater focus on the quality of clinical care and to make it easier to bring about improvement and change in clinical practice. Clinical governance helps in examining and measuring patient outcomes to ensure optimum quality of care (Balding, 2005).
Aligning Clinical Practice and Process Improvement for Patient Safety 2014iCareQuality.us
Implementing continuous daily improve¬ment is a standardized approach to reducing clinical variability in patient care delivery. The CLIPSE model engages frontline providers using a collaborative, peer review process, and may positively impact patient outcomes, cost of care, and quality improvement initiatives
Effect of Clinical Supervision Program for Head Nurses on Quality Nursing Care iosrjce
IOSR Journal of Nursing and health Science is ambitious to disseminate information and experience in education, practice and investigation between medicine, nursing and all the sciences involved in health care.
Nursing & Health Sciences focuses on the international exchange of knowledge in nursing and health sciences. The journal publishes peer-reviewed papers on original research, education and clinical practice.
By encouraging scholars from around the world to share their knowledge and expertise, the journal aims to provide the reader with a deeper understanding of the lived experience of nursing and health sciences and the opportunity to enrich their own area of practice
Standardized Bedside ReportingOne of the goals of h.docxwhitneyleman54422
Standardized Bedside Reporting
One of the goals of healthcare is to ensure that the patients get the best service possible while not compromising on the satisfaction and goodwill of the nurses and other healthcare professionals. A key aspect of ensuring quality healthcare is the consistent handling of patient information from nurse to nurse during shifts; information handled wrongly can jeopardize the patients’ health (Baker, 2010). It is important to implement procedures that ensure consistent and smooth handling of patient information from nurse to nurse to increase patient safety and improve nurse satisfaction. This paper will explore the merits of standardized bedside reporting as opposed to board reporting in ensuring a positive outcome and consistent quality healthcare.
Change model overview
A key aspect in determining whether bedside shift reporting has any merits over board reporting is the John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Process (JHNEBP). The John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Process is a framework for guiding the translation and synthesis of evidence into valid healthcare practice. JHNEBP has three cornerstones that include research, education, and practice; the framework ensures that research evidence is the basis of clinical decision-making. (Dearholt & Dang, 2012) The implementation of the John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Process has three key phases, the first phase is the identification of an important question, the second phase involves the systematic review of research evidence, and the third phase is translating the results into action. Nurses should use the JHNEBP process because it provides a clear way for healthcare professionals to translate research results into healthcare practice.
Practice Question
The team includes several key stakeholders who will benefit greatly from my research. Among the team members include myself as ER nurse, charge nurse, ERT ( Emergency room tech), nurse case manager, nurse supervisor, physician and hospital manager.
The evidence-based practice question that the team members will explore is "Does the use of a standardized bedside report versus board reporting help increase patient safety, nurse satisfaction, and positive outcome?" The evidence-based practice question assesses the ability of bedside shift reporting to improve healthcare provision. The practice area of the question is clinical. The practice issue came about because of assessing risk management concerns in ensuring good health practices. To answer the question, the team members gathered evidence from patient preferences, peer-reviewed journals, and clinical guidelines. The team members searched peer-reviewed journal databases to gather relevant information from previous research that could affect the results.
Understanding the merits of bedside shift reporting as opposed to board reporting is important as most healthcare organization use either strategy in collecting and passin.
PREPARATIONConsider the hospital-acquired conditions that ar.docxkeilenettie
PREPARATION
Consider the hospital-acquired conditions that are not reimbursed for under Medicare/Medicaid. Among these conditions are specific safety issues such as infections, falls, medication errors, and other safety concerns that could have been prevented or alleviated with the use of evidence-based guidelines. Hospital Safety Score, an independent nonprofit organization, uses national performance measures to determine the safety score for hospitals in the United States. The Hospital Safety Score Web site and other online resources provide hospital safety scores to the public.
Read the scenario below:
Scenario
As the manager of a unit, you have been advised by the patient safety office of an alarming increase in the hospital safety score for your unit. This is a very serious public relations matter because patient safety data is public information. It is also a financial crisis because the organization stands to lose a significant amount of reimbursement money from Medicare and Medicaid unless the source of the problem can be identified and corrected. You are required to submit a safety score improvement plan to the organization's leadership and the patient safety office.
Select a specific patient safety goal that has been identified by an organization, or one that is widely regarded in the nursing profession as relevant to quality patient care delivery, such as patient falls, infection rates, catheter-induced urinary infections, IV infections, et cetera.
DELIVERABLE: SAFETY SCORE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Develop a 3–5 page safety score improvement plan.
Identify the health care setting and nursing unit of your choice
in the title of the mitigation plan. For example, "Safety Score Improvement Plan for XYZ Rehabilitation Center."
You may choose to use information on a patient safety issue for the organization in which you currently work, or search for information from a setting you are familiar with, perhaps from your clinical work.
Demonstrate systems theory and systems thinking as you develop your recommendations.
Organize your report with these headings:
Study of Factors
Identify a patient safety issue.
Describe the influence of nursing leadership in driving the needed changes.
Apply systems thinking to explain how current policies and procedures may affect a safety issue.
Recommendations
Recommend an evidence-based strategy to improve the safety issue.
Explain a strategy to collect information about the safety concern.
How would you determine the sources of the problem?
Explain a plan to implement a recommendation and monitor outcomes.
What quality indicators will you use?
How will you monitor outcomes?
Will policies or procedures need to be changed?
Will nursing staff need training?
What tools will you need to do this?
Additional Requirements
Written communication: Written communication should be free of errors that detract from the overall message.
APA formatting: Resources and in-te ...
R3 Stem Cells and Kidney Repair A New Horizon in Nephrology.pptxR3 Stem Cell
R3 Stem Cells and Kidney Repair: A New Horizon in Nephrology" explores groundbreaking advancements in the use of R3 stem cells for kidney disease treatment. This insightful piece delves into the potential of these cells to regenerate damaged kidney tissue, offering new hope for patients and reshaping the future of nephrology.
One of the most developed cities of India, the city of Chennai is the capital of Tamilnadu and many people from different parts of India come here to earn their bread and butter. Being a metropolitan, the city is filled with towering building and beaches but the sad part as with almost every Indian city
Navigating the Health Insurance Market_ Understanding Trends and Options.pdfEnterprise Wired
From navigating policy options to staying informed about industry trends, this comprehensive guide explores everything you need to know about the health insurance market.
Leading the Way in Nephrology: Dr. David Greene's Work with Stem Cells for Ki...Dr. David Greene Arizona
As we watch Dr. Greene's continued efforts and research in Arizona, it's clear that stem cell therapy holds a promising key to unlocking new doors in the treatment of kidney disease. With each study and trial, we step closer to a world where kidney disease is no longer a life sentence but a treatable condition, thanks to pioneers like Dr. David Greene.
Antibiotic Stewardship by Anushri Srivastava.pptxAnushriSrivastav
Stewardship is the act of taking good care of something.
Antimicrobial stewardship is a coordinated program that promotes the appropriate use of antimicrobials (including antibiotics), improves patient outcomes, reduces microbial resistance, and decreases the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
WHO launched the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) in 2015 to fill knowledge gaps and inform strategies at all levels.
ACCORDING TO apic.org,
Antimicrobial stewardship is a coordinated program that promotes the appropriate use of antimicrobials (including antibiotics), improves patient outcomes, reduces microbial resistance, and decreases the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
ACCORDING TO pewtrusts.org,
Antibiotic stewardship refers to efforts in doctors’ offices, hospitals, long term care facilities, and other health care settings to ensure that antibiotics are used only when necessary and appropriate
According to WHO,
Antimicrobial stewardship is a systematic approach to educate and support health care professionals to follow evidence-based guidelines for prescribing and administering antimicrobials
In 1996, John McGowan and Dale Gerding first applied the term antimicrobial stewardship, where they suggested a causal association between antimicrobial agent use and resistance. They also focused on the urgency of large-scale controlled trials of antimicrobial-use regulation employing sophisticated epidemiologic methods, molecular typing, and precise resistance mechanism analysis.
Antimicrobial Stewardship(AMS) refers to the optimal selection, dosing, and duration of antimicrobial treatment resulting in the best clinical outcome with minimal side effects to the patients and minimal impact on subsequent resistance.
According to the 2019 report, in the US, more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur each year, and more than 35000 people die. In addition to this, it also mentioned that 223,900 cases of Clostridoides difficile occurred in 2017, of which 12800 people died. The report did not include viruses or parasites
VISION
Being proactive
Supporting optimal animal and human health
Exploring ways to reduce overall use of antimicrobials
Using the drugs that prevent and treat disease by killing microscopic organisms in a responsible way
GOAL
to prevent the generation and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Doing so will preserve the effectiveness of these drugs in animals and humans for years to come.
being to preserve human and animal health and the effectiveness of antimicrobial medications.
to implement a multidisciplinary approach in assembling a stewardship team to include an infectious disease physician, a clinical pharmacist with infectious diseases training, infection preventionist, and a close collaboration with the staff in the clinical microbiology laboratory
to prevent antimicrobial overuse, misuse and abuse.
to minimize the developme
CHAPTER 1 SEMESTER V PREVENTIVE-PEDIATRICS.pdfSachin Sharma
This content provides an overview of preventive pediatrics. It defines preventive pediatrics as preventing disease and promoting children's physical, mental, and social well-being to achieve positive health. It discusses antenatal, postnatal, and social preventive pediatrics. It also covers various child health programs like immunization, breastfeeding, ICDS, and the roles of organizations like WHO, UNICEF, and nurses in preventive pediatrics.
We understand the unique challenges pickleball players face and are committed to helping you stay healthy and active. In this presentation, we’ll explore the three most common pickleball injuries and provide strategies for prevention and treatment.
1. Improving Healthcare Quality Discussion
Improving Healthcare Quality DiscussionImproving Healthcare Quality DiscussionCLICK
HERE TO ORDER YOUR ASSIGNMENTInstructionsIn 2006, the Institute for Healthcare
Improvement (IHI) launched the 5 Million Lives Campaign, a nationwide quality initiative to
significantly reduce levels of morbidity and mortality in the United States. IHI quantified
this aim by asking hospitals that participated in the Campaign to prevent 5 million incidents
of medical harm by adopting 12 patient safety interventions over a two-year period
(Berwick, 2014). In response to the Campaign, Arrowhead District Hospital, a 374-bed
medical facility located in the Midwestern part of the United States, created the Quality of
Care Committee (QCC). The QCC was launched in an effort to enhance accountability for
delivery of quality care through the following strategies:Improve performance in clinical
quality as reflected in the core measures.Reduce mortality through the adoption of best
practices.Improve accountability across the organization and its various departments and
units.Improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of the peer review process.Improve
patient satisfaction.Foster a culture of patient safety.One of the first steps taken by the QCC
was to educate the executive leadership team about key quality initiatives and metrics, and
inform the medical staff about the credentialing and reappointment process, and patient
satisfaction. To enhance leadership and QCC member competency, the QCC made a
commitment to continuous learning, and sought knowledge about best practices and the
principles of quality improvement. Several QCC members, physicians, and executive leaders
made a site visit to a best practice facility and met with their leadership team to learn about
their hospital’s keys to achieving top performance results. In addition, Arrowhead’s Board
members attended IHI and Leapfrog Group conferences, which focused on the role of
governing boards in driving quality outcomes. For example, an ongoing commitment to
education is demonstrated not only through conference attendance, but also through the
regular provision and discussion of pertinent literature at each Board meeting (Rubino,
Esparza, & Chassiakos, 2014).The QCC explored and ed the adoption of several innovative
strategies to foster a culture of quality and safety. These included crew resource
management (CRM), QCC rounding, and the “Just Culture” approach to errors. The CRM
model was originally developed by the aviation industry in response to critical and fatal
errors by a flight team. It has since been adapted for use in healthcare from the techniques
used by aerospace cockpit crews to promote effective teamwork and structured
communication for enhanced patient safety (McConaughey, 2008). QCC members also
began conducting rounds throughout the hospital prior to its monthly meetings. The rounds
2. were used to create greater visibility for executive leadership’s commitment to quality care,
and provide an opportunity for QCC member to assess and validate the deployment of
effective, patient/family-centered and evidence-based care practices at the bedside. Rounds
have been made to various Arrowhead departments and units to interact with frontline
staff, physicians, and managers, and evaluate progress using tracer methodology (Schmidt,
2014, April 21). Patient “tracers” were developed by The Joint Commission as a means to
evaluate a patient’s care across the continuum of care in order to evaluate compliance to
accreditation standards. Some areas assessed during rounds were core measures processes,
pressure ulcer prevention, emergency department (ED) and hospital throughout, and the
case management/patient discharge process (The Joint Commission, 2017, February 10).
“Just Culture” error reporting is an approach that shifts attention from retrospective
judgment of others to real-time evaluation of behavioral choices in a rational and organized
manner. A just culture balances the need for an open and honest reporting environment
with the end of a quality learning environment and culture. While the organization has a
duty and responsibility to employees (and ultimately to patients), this approach emphasizes
that all employees are held responsible for the quality of their choices. Just culture requires
a change from focusing on errors and outcomes to system design and management of the
behavioral choices of all employees (Boysen, 2013). Improving Healthcare Quality
DiscussionIn the years since its inception, the QCC has led efforts to engage physicians by
creating aligned incentives such as the incorporation of performance goals in physician
administrative contracts and the referral of core measure fall-outs for peer review. The QCC
has ed physician leadership in their oversight of medical staff credentialing, proctoring,
and tracking f medical staff performance data as part of their ongoing professional practice
evaluation process. To ensure continued focus on the patient and family experience, a
family member representative was added to the QCC as a voting member. To reinforce
leadership accountability across the organization, the QCC invited department managers
and directors to the QCC meetings to communicate their plans for improving their area’s
performance if their results were falling below the established benchmarks. Improving
Healthcare Quality DiscussionAs a result of these efforts, Arrowhead District Hospital
demonstrated significant improvements, including a 25% reduction in mortality, improved
core-measure perfect-care score, ED and hospital throughput improvement, a shift to
performance-based medical staff reappointment, and the sharing of their best practices
with others through publications in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals (Rubino, Esparza, &
Chassiakos, 2014).Using a systems thinking approach, keeping in mind that every action in
the hospital results in a reaction somewhere else the facility, answer the following
questions:Which of the key strategies adopted by the QCC do you think are the most
effective for ongoing quality improvement? Explain your rationale.What additional rounds
can you suggest for QCC members besides the ones already mentioned? Why?What other
measures can be used to assess the quality of care being delivered at Arrowhead District
Hospital? your recommendations.Length: 2–3 pages (excluding title page, references page,
and any appendices)References: Include a minimum of 3 peer-reviewed, scholarly
resources.Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and
concepts that are presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating
3. directly to this topic. Your assignment should also reflect graduate-level writing and APA
standards (6th edition). Be sure to adhere to University’s Academic Integrity Policy.Upload
your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button.References:Berwick, D. M.
(2014). Promising care: how we can rescue health care by improving it. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.Boysen, P. G. (2013). Just culture: a foundation for balanced accountability and
patient safety. Ochsner Journal, 13(3), 400-406.McConaughey, E. (2008). Crew resource
management in healthcare: the evolution of teamwork training and MedTeams. Journal of
Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 22(2), 96-104.Rubino, L., Esparza, S., & Chassiakos, Y. R.
(2014). New leadership for today’s health care professionals: cases and concepts.
Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.Schmidt, B. (2014, April 21). Patient- and
family-centered care: advancing quality and safety with bedside rounding. Retrieved
from https://www.psqh.com/analysis/patient-and-family-c…The Joint Commission. (2017,
February 10). Facts about the tracer methodology. Retrieved
from https://www.jointcommission.org/facts_about_the_tr…Due DateJul 14, 2019 11:59
PMRubric Name: Common Grading Rubric (10 points)CriteriaUnacceptable0 pointsNeeds
Improvement1.5 pointsMeets1.7 pointsExceeds2 pointsContent/QualityNo evidence of
knowledge and understanding of assignment content.Little evidence of knowledge and
understanding of assignment content.Some evidence of knowledge and understanding of
assignment content.Strong evidence of knowledge and understanding of assignment
content.Critical ThinkingNo evidence of analysis of assignment content.Little evidence of
analysis of assignment content.Some evidence of analysis of assignment content.Thorough
analysis of assignment concept.Grammar and MechanicsNumerous misspelled words and
grammatical errors.Frequently misspells words and/or makes consistent grammatical
errors.Occasionally misspells words and/or some grammatical errors.No or very few
misspelled words and/or no or very few grammatical errors.APA FormattingNot used.Used;
numerous formatting issues.Used; minor formatting issues.Used; no formatting
issues.References/ Sources not scholarly or peer-reviewed; does not meet minimum
number of required sources.Most sources are not scholarly or peer-reviewed; meets
minimum number of required sources (low end of range).Most sources are scholarly or
peer-reviewed; meets minimum number of required sources (high end of range).Sources
are scholarly and peer-reviewed; exceeds maximum number of required sources.