Introduction:
This paper describes some of the areas of potential advancement towards quality improvement at Phoenix Children’s Hospitals and among its Medicine Centers. One significant improvement strategy is measurement. As Dickson and Tholl (2014) espouses, the attribute involves collection of clinical data to advance patient care and outcomes. By using measurement as a tool, clinical leaders can understand the direction and status of the services delivered as well as define the quality levels within the organization.
Areas of potential improvement:
The core areas of consideration are pediatric research and trauma diagnostics. Both of these aspects have a significant impact on the organization’s mission statement and philosophy- to be the global leader in pediatric health.
Involving the patient in the treatment processes has not received full recognition, which is important in enhancing recovery levels among trauma patients. In addition, low-level diagnostic procedures diminishes the prospects of patients’ health and recovery. Poor services delivery attracts considerable financial implications and consequently reducing the market share and the financial security of the organization (Phoenix Children’s Hospital, 2014).
Quality improvement strategies:
The process of quality improvement is a systematic, data guided process, established to activate immediate advancement and improvement in health care delivery within a specific settings. Hence, a quality improvement strategy is any intervention projected at diminishing the quality gap existing within a target group of patients, especially those encountered in the routine clinical practice. To align the mission of the organization to commitment towards improved performance and quality health care, there are various models and instruments in data collection (Scales & Rubenfeld, 2014).
Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA):
This model has been used by many health care institutions, such as the Institute for Health care Improvement, in rapid organizational and cycle improvement. The model is cyclical in nature, in bringing about and evaluating change; and effective in accomplishing improvements, through small and repeated PDSAs processes rather than major and slow improvement processes. The model employs three significant questions, namely: What is the goal of the project? How will the accomplishment of the goal be determined? And what will be the steps towards achieving the goal?
What is to be accomplished?
Increasing recovery rates among children subjected to adverse juvenile experiences such as: accidents and injuries, sexual abuse and assault, which induce psychological disorders such as trauma.
Process measures:
The percentage of patients with psychological conditions will be recorded. The mode of diagnostic and treatment applied will be considered for review. The recovery environment will be assessed appropriately. The level of patient involvement within the process of treatment administration will be considered for analysis. Eventually, the quality of patient encounters with the medical practitioners will be recorded for assessment.
Outcome measures:
The variations in the number of successful traumatic recoveries with different diagnostic and treatment procedures will be evaluated. Also, the well-being of the patient shall be assessed relative to the duration spent within the health facility, which is per 1000 patient days. The willingness of a patient to co-operate and share information, with a medical practitioner, regarding diagnostic, and the treatment procedures shall be considered.
Prospective changes:
Providing the patient with immediate traumatic and crisis interventions upon arrival into the health facility will be important. Also, patients will be made to rest in quiet environments to ease their psychological agitations. It is from this privacy and confidentiality that patients will volunteer information, essential to complementing the diagnostic and treatment procedures.
Advantages of the PDSA Model:
The model starts with outlining the scope and nature of the problem, describing the prospective improvements, the parties involved, highlighting the variables that will manifest change, and eventually where the strategy will be dedicated.
Disadvantage:
The method is time-consuming and hence inappropriate for emergencies.
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA):
The technique is essential in highlighting and eliminating prospective failures, setbacks, and errors from a practice, system or process before they occur. In the treatment of pediatric psychological and crisis related conditions, the medics must focus on the various possibilities that hamper recovery among such patients. For example, when a patient is subjected to intensive physical injuries, the psychological health is also affected. However, medical practitioners overlook this fact, and this limits the chances of a speedy and successful recovery.
Advantages:
The FMEA model has a deep focus on health care system through research, and prevents potential failures from occurring. Therefore, the method gives provision to diversity in treatment methods and monitoring change over time.
Disadvantages:
It is not possible to achieve an absolute state of no-error level within any system or process, and therefore high levels of accuracy are required.
Lean Production System:
The model comprises of identifying the patient’s needs and working towards improving the procedures involved in the implementation of treatment. The steps involve optimizing value-adding processes in a convenient sequence and enhance continuous operations. The model investigates errors and limitations, while improving the quality of operations implemented towards eliminating similar errors.
Advantages:
The model increases the efficacy of treatment and decreases the costs of pathological examinations or even pharmaceutical costs. In addition, the model incorporates the root cause analysis processes, thus eliminating the fundamental setbacks towards patient’ recovery. Its efficacy surpasses the intensive human effort required.
The methodology of choice:
The lean production system approach would be the most appropriate in improving the treatment of traumatic conditions, hence elevating patient’ recovery levels. Besides, change is effected while data and information are progressively collected. Outcomes from the implementation project are later evaluated and interpreted by considering the selected measurements that designate success or failure. Eventually, the necessary action is initiated based on the results by administering the change or initiating the process again.
Health Information Technology:
Health Information Technology provides an appropriate tool in advancing the overall quality, standards, safety and efficiency of the health care delivery system. In the Phoenix University Hospital, the following applications would be essential (Pons et al., 2013).
Electronic Health Record (EHR):
This is a system of information that would reduce the errors relating to drug prescription, diagnostics, treatment, and preventive procedures. The system is consistent to remind medics of treatment schedules, tracking referrals, and disease management protocols, especially in managing psychological disorders such as trauma.
Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS):
The application will be significant in pediatric research and in implementing correct traumatic diagnosis for correct and improved end results. From the projected efficiency, the organization is guaranteed to cut on its operational costs.
Population registry:
The application will be vital in providing comprehensive clinical information from the patient panel. From its specific diseases and conditions markers, identifying patients with unmet clinical needs will be convenient and reliable, and thus critical for quality improvement purposes.
Health care Benchmarking and Milestones:
Benchmarking entails comparative analysis in the performance of healthcare facilities, within a region or country. Peer health facilities can be ranked according to their levels of quality service delivery, according to particular recognitions, and specialties that are termed as milestones. These benchmarks are essential in outlining patient safety and experience to the overall cost of health care (Dickson & Tholl, 2014).
Health care quality benchmark:
Through advanced pediatric research programs initiated by the Phoenix University Medicine Centers, new procedures and innovation would yield appropriate diagnostics and treatment of traumatic conditions.
Patient safety benchmark:
Through the advancement of traumatic and crisis research for sound intervention programs, the initiative is set to train professional medics who strive towards understanding the patient’s cognitive state towards the administration of treatment. Programs will be exemplified by projects such as the Shaken Baby Preventive Project, a viable model that enhances the recovery of children affected by traumatic experiences through psychotherapy (Phoenix Hospital University, 2014).
Patient satisfaction benchmark:
The patient-centered therapeutic practices such as preventive, diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up programs, are core to the recovery of all psychological medical conditions. The patient believes that he or she directly participates in the traumatic or psychological recovery. The medical practitioner plays the role of a facilitator by laying emphasis on the patient’s judgments and psychological health.
Quality measures and mission statement:
Frequently, the Quality Improvement Plan is adopted as an extension of organization’s mission and philosophy. Consequently, the firm must constantly monitor and evaluate its performance towards aligning it to a set of values, as summed up in the mission statement.
Advancing global pediatric health is the ultimate goal in the mission statement of both Phoenix Children’s Hospital and the Phoenix University School of Nursing. This is attained through striving for excellence in superior medical services and progressive research (Phoenix Children’s Hospital, 2014).
Conclusion:
Conclusively, a quality improvement plan defines the organizational priorities, goals and objectives, and prospective programs and projects’ requirements. Moreover, the plan defines a systematic approach to discovering new opportunities to improving the health care services, and resolving the highlighted shortcomings towards serving the patients much better (Scales & Rubenfeld, 2014).
References:
Astuto, M. (2013). Pediatric anesthesia, intensive care and pain: Standardization in clinical practice. Milan: Springer.
Dickson, G., & Tholl, B. (2014). Bringing leadership to life in health: LEADS in a caring environment: a new perspective. London: Random House.
Phoenix Children’s Hospital Website: Retrieved 28th November, 2014. http://www.phoenixchildrens.org/medical-specialties/trauma-center
Phoenix University School of Nursing Website: Retrieved 28th Novemebr, 2014. http://www.phoenixcollege.edu/academics/departments/nursing
Pons, J. L., Torricelli, D., & Pajaro, M. (2013). Converging clinical and engineering research on neurorehabilitation. Berlin: Springer.
Scales, D. C., & Rubenfeld, G. D. (2014). The organization of critical care: An evidence-based approach to improving quality. New York: Sage
