Quality Metrics for Chronic Disease Management, Essay Example

The quality metrics for managing chronic diseases differ from those that apply to my practice setting. The major difference between the treatment of chronic and acute disease is that metrics utilized to analyze the efficacy of acute disease treatment is typically related to the recovery time for patients in addition to the percentage of individuals that are cured. Such metrics are not plausible for patients with chronic disease, as the short-term goal is often to treat systems since an immediate recovery is often not possible. Therefore, these metrics are usually associated with pain level reduction and efficacy of treatments. In addition, since cost of care is a typical concern for patients with chronic disease, metrics that focus on understanding how costs can be reduced apply to this setting as well (Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality, 2011).

Ultimately, quality metrics help facilitate change and improve the management of chronic disease. They help us gain a greater understanding of how the patient’s health is changing in addition to providing health care professionals with evidence that will contribute to their ability to adequately treat a patient according to his or her unique needs. Furthermore, doing so will help health care providers determine adequate treatments for a more affordable price if this becomes necessary. While quality metrics is certainly valuable on the patient level, it is valuable on the organization level as well. These metrics help us gain a greater understanding certain chronic illnesses which provides us with evidence that helps facilitate the management of a specific disease for a whole disease population. These figures help us apply the knowledge of a series of cases to an individual and continuing such evidence based practice allows us to contribute to the evolution of the field (Care Continuum Alliance, 2011).

Many health care professionals that regularly work with patients with chronic disease believe that the use of automated trigger systems confers an advantage for patient safety. However, others believe that these efforts are not worthwhile. My personal belief is that automated trigger systems are cost effective and allow for more accuracy than is possible with voluntary reporting. This technology is particularly relevant to the management of chronic disease, as these patients are typically prescribed to a particular medication for a long period of time. It is therefore important to ensure that they receive the proper dose so that harmful side effects do not manifest. A common consensus is that the current automated trigger systems will be expanded to handle a broader scope of data in the future, which will make them even more valuable. These potential uses include the ability to compare data with other hospitals and contributing this information to other sources in order to enhance patient safety through websites, journal articles, and partner organizations.

The use of automated trigger systems is both a proactive and reactive response when educating patients on disease management. The systems provide data that make health care professionals aware of previous drug errors, and they are able to use this information to educate their patients (National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2011). In addition, they can be utilized as a reactive response to inform the patient when a mistake has been made in addition to indicating how these mistakes can be avoided. Ultimately, the use of automated trigger systems are valuable to both health care staff and their patients at a variety of levels, as it educates both the patients and the system.

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/Care

Continuum Alliance. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.carecontinuumalliance.org/

National Committee for Quality Assurance. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.ncqa.org/