Process And Policies to Improve Patient Care Outcomes
Order ID 53003233773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
Process And Policies to Improve Patient Care Outcomes
in healthcare procedures, process and policies can be attributed to the growth in healthcare research and the dissemination of supportive findings that can be clinically applied to improve patient care outcomes and reduce morbidity or mortality. To arrive at a solution, or create a workable pathway, healthcare leaders and developers must understand the significance of fully understand the current system in which they are affiliated. The ability to debulk the moving pieces of a system in all its entirety should help to drive a focus for change and direct the best approach to quality improvement.
Navigating change can be challenging but however difficult the path, replacement should be an absolute within every institution. Having the right tools to move through the steps and evaluate the process seems a reasonable approach to achieve organizational goals. The purpose of this discussion is to identify a suitable evaluation tool that can be used to assess the measures or steps taking during a quality improvement plan.
Evaluation tools may vary in, usability, reliability and validity depending on how it was created or its intended use. Research studies have, over time, extended many credited frameworks and made them available for the continuity of growth development amongst new developers and leaders. The conceptual framework I find most applicable in my current hospital system is tracking and graphing and analyzing raw data. The use of monitoring and evaluation of healthcare systems strengthening provides guidelines for standardizing terms, indicators, and methods to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of health care evaluation (Hickey & Brosnan, 2017).
A benefit of applying the monitoring and evaluation (M & E) framework is the overlap with other system approaches and the collaborative look at all the inputs, outputs and impacts the change has on the entire system. Evaluation frequently happens throughout the process and can be conducted or outsourced to independent entities to decrease bias or provide more objective findings. An added advantage of using monitoring and evaluation approach is the provision of information on what and how the intervention is doing. Performance aims and objectives are clear, which is an integral part of accountability to funding agencies and stakeholders (WHO, n.d.).
A notable challenge in using M & E approach within the existing system to identify the barriers to outcomes can be misrepresented by perceptions and not necessarily based on fact. Special care must then be taken to maintain the validity of the information that is being collected due to the specificity of the data being collected. Monitoring and evaluation systems strengthening is vastly used on a larger scale, the framework and working pieces can be scaled down to address the barriers to electrogram completion(input), recognition of acute myocardial infarction (output) and the patient outcome (impact).
Quality is defined, agreed, realistic and measurable, the use of the form appears to encourage changes in practice (Courtney, 2008). Information received from the M & E systems strengthening can be used to improve on the diagnosis and management of all patients that meet the criteria for the study. Leadership will create a collaborative team-based approach to meet the objectives. Performance improvement will be initiated with education and training for the staff. Closing the gap on delay to care, reducing poor patient outcomes and minimizing time wasted in the emergency room, meets the overall objective of patient care. Additionally, the organization advances towards the goal of serving the community as the most trusted healthcare provider.
Courtney, J. (2008). Do monitoring and evaluation tools, designed to measure the improvement in the quality of primary education, constrain or enhance educational development? International Journal of Educational Development, 28(5), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.07.002
Hickey, J. V., & Brosnan, C. A. (2017). Evaluation of health care quality in for DNPs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
WHO | Category 6: Monitoring and evaluation. (n.d.). WHO. Retrieved January 23, 2020, from https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/vct/sw_toolkit/moni…
Process And Policies to Improve Patient Care Outcomes
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!