discussion reply 1 6

RE: Discussion – Week 9 – Initial Post
Author:
Marsha Mcknight
Posted Date:
January 23, 2020 1:21 AM
Status:
Published

Week 9- Initial Post

Improvement 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.

Reference

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…

REply to discussion, APA format, 2 references