course materials

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.