Write a 1,250-1,500-word essay about quality improvement. Include the following points in your essay:
-Evaluate which accrediting body would be most appropriate for your health care organization.
-Summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation.
-Based on your research and experience, what performance or quality metrics could you focus on for a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body?
-How does the quality performance financially impact the organization?
Include at least three references, including the textbook. Quality Improvement Essay Paper
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Quality Improvement Essay
Quality improvement in any facility is intended to strengthen its ability to delivery exceptional outcomes and health care that is equitable, efficient, timely, patient-centered, effective and safe for every patient. With this in mind, quality improvement initiatives at Children’s Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) embraces quality improvement efforts to eliminate hospital acquired conditions as serious safety events. This is achieved through developing quality improvement microsystems and high reliability units. While these efforts are commendable, they are faulted for achieving limited results. This has been blamed on the medical personnel at CHOC not understanding quality improvement methods. The proposed project seeks to address this concern by presenting offering an education program with a week-long course on quality improvement methodology that prepares those who successful complete the course to integrate quality improvement into their framework of thinking (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019).
Evaluate which accrediting body would be most appropriate for your health care organization.
The proposed project is to deliver a week-long training program to the medical personnel on quality improvement methodology with a focus on enabling the training participants to integrate quality improvement into their framework of thinking. Developing the training program will require a needs analysis that determines the aspects of quality improvement methodology in which the medical personnel fail or have shortcomings. Once the needs are identified, a training program will be delivered that applies a curriculum that addresses the failures and shortcomings. The curriculum and content development requires review by both CHOC and an accrediting body (Cherry & Jacob, 2019).
The most appropriate accrediting body for CHOC is Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). This agency is the largest accrediting body that plays an important role in ensuring healthcare quality. In fact, it is a non-profit organization that is based in the USA and has provided accreditation for more than 20,000 healthcare programs and organizations in the USA. With a board comprised of 21 commissioners who include advocates, educators and health care providers, JCAHO employs more than 1,000 surveyors who focus on improving patient care quality. Education is an important function of the organization as it presents education standards that are ever evolving with input from its commissioners and feedback from health care organizations and providers. As such, JCAHO will be the appropriate accrediting body for evaluating and verifying the services and operations of the training program for applicability and that recognized standards are met (Healthcare Management Degree Guide, 2022).
Summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation.
The training program would be presented as a service based within CHOC that earns certification on its own through JCAHO thereby signifying excellence. Towards this end, the training program must meet JCAHO standard as determined by a field review. The review must show that the program improves the capacity of the health care personnel and organization to meet the national patient safety goals for hospitals and other relevant quality improvement standards (The Joint Commission, 2022).
The program content and modalities must meet the standards addressing the level of performance in quality improvement training. The standards presented by the organization offer the maximum achievable performance expectations for training activities that affect care quality, particularly the significant functions that relate to the management of the health care organization (Omnex, 2022).
Based on your research and experience, what performance or quality metrics could you focus on for a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body?
Based on research and experience, there is a need to focus on metrics on the training program that would then be presented to JCAHO to reveal that it has a positive impact on quality improvement at CHOC. The training program is carefully planned to enable the medical personnel reach the quality improvement goals at CHOC and improvement the overall quality improvement results. The metrics must show that the training works and that it is 100% optimized to achieve the desired outcomes. As such, the metrics must be trackable, and show that the training is engaging and contributes to quality improvement goals (Banchs & Pop, 2021).
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
The identified metrics are expected to serve four main functions. First, evaluate the different components of the training program. Second, measure the training effectiveness of the program. Third, use data points and insights to align the training program to the quality improvement goals. Fourth, evaluate the success of the training programs (Banchs & Pop, 2021).
The principal focus of the training program is effectiveness with the training metrics answering questions of: Was the training successful? Were the learners satisfied with the training? Has there been an increase in quality improvement performance at the hospital? Has there been a noticeable increase in quality improvement projects? What is the additional training needed for any further quality improvement skills? Within the organization, the training results become apparent when these questions are answered and the training is linked to a clear goal. The training goal is to enable the employees to integrate quality improvement into their framework of thinking. Consequently, the appropriate level of training will be applied to achieve this, and this, the training metric will be measured against this specific training goal (Banchs & Pop, 2021).
Five performance metrics collected through surveys, focus groups and employee performance data will be presented to JCAHO as the focus areas for the quality improvement project. First, learner engagement to include the measures of amount of effort and time learners invest into the learning process. Good learner engagement results in the learners actually taking time to enroll for the training program and process the training material. While there is no exact metric to measure learner engagement, there are statistics that can be evaluated to include time spent on the training program. Naturally, the more engaged the learners, the more time they would spend on the training program and interacting with its features. Nonetheless, it is important to note that this may not always be the case. Learners can spend a lot of time in a training program and not be engaged (Agarwal, 2020). Quality Improvement Essay Paper
Second, training return on investment. This looks at the efficiency of the effort put into the training. The training program is linked to greater integration of quality improvement into framework of thinking as evidenced by how much the learners are involved in successful quality improvement initiatives. Third, training experience satisfaction. This is collected through a post-training survey that gauges the satisfaction levels of the learners with the training they received. It looks at how the learners rate the training usefulness and if they would recommend it for others (Agarwal, 2020).
Fourth, operational efficiency. The training should increase operational efficiency in terms of increasing involvement in successful quality improvement initiatives. The training would improve operational efficiency if it is effectively done to address the specific skill gaps needed to optimize quality improvement processes in the organization. Some of the operational metrics that can be measured are re-hospitalization rates and cost of care that can be checked before and after training to note any improvement in operational efficiency (Agarwal, 2020).
Finally, personnel performance post-training. This looks at the personnel performance improvement over time related to the training to include the work quality, quantity and efficiency as well as the organizational performance metrics. The impact of the training may be only noticeable after an extended period of time or immediately noticeable, dependent on the complexity of the skills being delivered in training (Agarwal, 2020).
How does the quality performance financially impact the organization?
The proposed project is to deliver a week-long quality improvement methodology training that prepares the learners to integrate quality improvement into their framework of thinking. The program is expected to have a financial impact on the organization as revealed through training return on investment metric. This measures the profitability of the money put into the training (Penner, 2017). For instance, if $5,000 is spend on the training program and they end up increasing the number of successful quality improvement projects in the organization, which lead to an increase in $30,000 from Medicare from reimbursement following a reduction in re-hospitalization figures, then: Training return on investment = (return of benefit – investment cost) / (investment cost * 100) = [($30,000 – $5,000) / ($5,000)] * 100) = 500% return on investment of training.
In addition to return on investment, there are three other financial impacts that would be evaluated. First, attracting and retaining quality personnel. The health care industry is experiencing a shortage of qualified personnel, a problem that CHOC is also experiencing. The training acts as a competitive advantage as it shows that the organization is willing to investment in their career growth, continuing education, skill development, learning and training. This means that the organization is expected to have higher personnel retention so that it does not spend on hiring new personnel (Noe & Kodwani, 2018). Second, it is an efficient method of developing the required job skills. The training matches the personnel skills to the needs of the organization. This ensures that the personnel develop the skills that are useful in the organization and can take on advanced job roles. The result is less money spent on other employee training programs that may not be as useful. Third, it allows the organization to get JCAHO accreditation, and this is important for improving market visibility and being accepted as a business partner by other organizations. Fourth, it allows the organization to avoid costs associated with poor or no quality improvement methodology training (van Dam, 2018).
References
Agarwal, P. (2020). Leadership Training: Learn, Lead Inspire. BlueRose Publishers.
Banchs, R. J., & Pop, M. R. (2021). The Quality Improvement Challenge: A Practical Guide for Physicians. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cherry, B., & Jacob, S. R. (2019). Contemporary Nursing: Issues, Trends, & Management (8th ed.). Elsevier, Inc.
Healthcare Management Degree Guide (2022). What is JCAHO? https://www.healthcare-management-degree.net/faq/what-is-jcaho/
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (Eds.) (2019). Evidence-based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Noe, R. A., & Kodwani, A. D. (2018). Employee Training and Development (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Omnex (2022). Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). https://www.omnex.com/JCAHO
Penner, S. J. (2017). Economics and financial management for nurses and nurse leaders (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
The Joint Commission (2022). Standards. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/
van Dam, N. (Ed.) (2018). Elevating Learning & Development. McKinsey & Company. Quality Improvement Essay Paper
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ESSAY Rubric
Appropriate Accrediting Body
16.2 points
Criteria Description
Appropriate Accrediting Body
- Target
16.2 points
The essay skillfully describes in a well-researched manner what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization.
- Acceptable
14.9 points
The essay soundly describes in a well-researched manner what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization.
- Approaching
14.26 points
The essay clearly describes what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. Some relevant and supportive research is included.
- Insufficient
12.96 points
The essay vaguely describes what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. Little relevant or supportive research is included.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
The essay does not adequately describe what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. No relevant or supportive research is included.
collapse Obtaining Accreditation assessment
Obtaining Accreditation
16.2 points
Criteria Description
Obtaining Accreditation
- Target
16.2 points
The essay substantially summarizes the requirements to obtain accreditation.
- Acceptable
14.9 points
The essay soundly summarizes the requirements to obtain accreditation.
- Approaching
14.26 points
The essay clearly summarizes the requirements to obtain accreditation.
- Insufficient
12.96 points
The essay does not clearly summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
The essay does not adequately summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation.
collapse Quality Improvement assessment
Quality Improvement
15.3 points
Criteria Description
Quality Improvement
- Target
15.3 points
The essay thoroughly and skillfully identifies what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body.
- Acceptable
14.08 points
The essay thoroughly identifies what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body.
- Approaching
13.46 points
The essay clearly identifies what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body.
- Insufficient
12.24 points
The essay does not clearly identify what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
The essay does not sufficiently identify what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body.
collapse Financial Impact assessment
Financial Impact
15.3 points
Criteria Description
Financial Impact
- Target
15.3 points
The essay comprehensively describes how the quality performance can financially impact the organization.
- Acceptable
14.08 points
The essay soundly describes how the quality performance can financially impact the organization.
- Approaching
13.46 points
The essay clearly describes how the quality performance can financially impact the organization.
- Insufficient
12.24 points
The essay does not clearly describe how the quality performance can financially impact the organization.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
The essay does not sufficiently describe how the quality performance can financially impact the organization.
collapse Thesis, Position, or Purpose assessment
Thesis, Position, or Purpose
6.3 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.
- Target
6.3 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience.
- Acceptable
5.8 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
- Approaching
5.54 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.
- Insufficient
5.04 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.
collapse Development, Structure, and Conclusion assessment
Development, Structure, and Conclusion
7.2 points
Criteria Description
Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.
- Target
7.2 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
- Acceptable
6.62 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
- Approaching
6.34 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
- Insufficient
5.76 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.
collapse Evidence assessment
Evidence
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.
- Target
4.5 points
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively.
- Acceptable
4.14 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.
- Approaching
3.96 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.
- Insufficient
3.6 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.
collapse Mechanics of Writing assessment
Mechanics of Writing
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.
- Target
4.5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
- Acceptable
4.14 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.
- Approaching
3.96 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
- Insufficient
3.6 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
collapse Format/Documentation assessment
Format/Documentation
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
- Target
4.5 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.
- Acceptable
4.14 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
- Approaching
3.96 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.
- Insufficient
3.6 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.