Quality Improvement Report, Research Paper Example

Cindy Janowski, a healthcare administrator of a local organization, noticed pre-eminent facilities implement quality improvement reporting (QIR) to improve services. She plans to keep her organization abreast of industry practices with respect to wants to quality improvement (QI). She has hired us to consult with her on such standards as a method of improving quality within her organization. The aim of this research is to communicate factors, practices, and challenges involved in implementing such standards so that Cindy will be better equipped to succeed in effectively implementing one in her organization.

The following questions will be addressed as part of the consultation. What are the foundational frameworks of QI? Why do various health care stakeholders define the quality of care differently? What are the roles of various clinicians and patients in QI? Why is quality management needed in the health care industry? What areas must be monitored for quality? What accrediting and regulatory organizations are involved in QI? What are their roles? What helpful resources and organizations affect QI?

The foundation of QI is the method by which quality of care is operationalized and data collected as a from of measure. As such, various healthcare stakeholders define quality of care based on their point-of-view. Therefore, there with is variation in the perceptions of both clinicians and patients as a whole. This necessitates quality management within the industry. Clinical performance and patient service are the two major areas that should be monitored for quality.

To standardize these measures, certain accrediting and regulatory organizations impact the principles by which the procedures are meant to improve quality of care. For example, the American Medical Association helps accredit and regulate physical n practices and performance; similarly, the Americans Psychiatric Association accredits and regulates the practices and performance of psychiatrists. Furthermore, such professional organizations and publications help healthcare professionals keep abreast of best practices with respect to their particular profession.

Nevertheless, certain practices seem to yield better results with respect to implanting such system. Researchers found that the style of implementation as well as behavioral factors on part of staff and hospital size were all factors that impact the implementation process (Shortell, O’Brien, Carman, Foster, Hughes, Boerstler, & O’Connor, 1995). Administrators who are flexible and include staff input in implementation of the programs seem to have the best success rate based on patient outcomes and length of stay (Shortell, O’Brien, Carman, Foster, Hughes, Boerstler, & O’Connor, 1995). Still, larger hospitals face additional obstacles. Because bureaucracies tend to dominate the corporate culture of such facilities, the success rate based on these measures seems significantly less than those of smaller hospitals (Shortell, O’Brien, Carman, Foster, Hughes, Boerstler, & O’Connor, 1995). These are some of the practices and challenges at the implantation phase.

Nevertheless, in order to maintain increasing quality over time is the domain of continual quality improvement (CQI). At this phase, the impact on outcomes seems slightly less clear, but the subjective quality of work based on practitioner perceptions increased, and CQI does account for reduced costs (Shortell, Bennett, & Byck, 1998). Here too, staff involvement is necessary to execute improvements effectively (Shortell, Bennett, & Byck, 1998). One of the techniques often used is that of formal feedback on part of practitioners (Shortell, Bennett, & Byck, 1998). These measures are most effective in a cultural environment that values competition and regulatory structures (Shortell, Bennett, & Byck, 1998). One element that is indispensible in CQI is that of effective leadership (Shortell, Bennett, & Byck, 1998).

One of the most effective methods of enforcing QI and CQI is the implementation on performance pay (Lindenauer, Remus, Roman, Rothberg, Benjamin, Ma & Bratzler, 2007). Although public reporting of performance also enhances QI and CQI, the impact is greater when practitioners earn more the better they perform (Lindenauer, Remus, Roman, Rothberg, Benjamin, Ma & Bratzler, 2007). Still, researchers admit more studies should be conducted to verify their findings with respect to these variables (Lindenauer, Remus, Roman, Rothberg, Benjamin, Ma & Bratzler, 2007). One of the major drawbacks of implementing performance pay on part of administrators is that it reduces or exceeds the amount saved in costs (Lindenauer, Remus, Roman, Rothberg, Benjamin, Ma, & Bratzler, 2007).

Cindy Janowski, a healthcare administrator of a local organization, planned to keep her organization abreast of industry practices with respect to quality improvement. She hired us to consult her on standards as a method of improving quality within her organization. The crux of our consultation included how QI works in terms of its foundation, differing definitions of quality, stakeholder opinions, implementation, maintenance, and enhancement. With this information, Cindy should better understand the underlying processes involved in QI. Armed with these understandings she will be better able to lead a project geared toward constructing a standardized QI system within her organization.

References

Shortell, S. M., O’Brien, J. L., Carman, J. M., Foster, R. W., Hughes, E. F., Boerstler, H. & O’Connor, E. J. (1995). Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: concept versus implementation. Health Serv Res., 30(2): 377–401.

Shortell, S. M., Bennett, C. L., & Byck, G. R. (1998). Assessing the Impact of Continuous Quality Improvement on Clinical Practice: What It Will Take to Accelerate Progress. The Milbank Quarterly, 76(4): 593-624.

Lindenauer, P. K., Remus, D., Roman, S., Rothberg, M.B., Benjamin, E.M.., Ma, A., & Bratzler, D.W. (2007). Public Reporting and Pay for Performance in Hospital Quality Improvement. N Engl J Med, 356:486-496.