What conclusions can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period?
The score on Surgical Site- Infection from colony surgery improved significantly from 2011 to 2015, suggesting that there was a definite change in medical procedures utilized.
Central line-associated bloodstream infections also reduced over the examination period. The decisive score on blood infections explains that the healthcare facility emphasized more on treatment procedures to the ever-improving treatment score.
Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections score reduced gradually from 2011 to 2015. Notably, the deteriorated score on urinary tract infections reveals that health care organization did not put much emphasis on mitigating the disease.
Surgical Site -Infection from abdominal hysterectomy score also improved through the period of examination. This illustration brings forth the conclusion that the healthcare facility had well-managed procedures for reducing intestinal hysterectomy infections.
What trends do you see for each quality measure over the 5-year period?
The score attached to surgical site infection from colony surgery reduced between the year 2011 and 2012; however, it attained an overall positive rating in 2015.
Central line-associated bloodstream infections score portrayed a very minimal positive change between 2013 and 2014.
The measure associated with Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections has the most deteriorated score among the four tests.
Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy score did not portray significant change at first. However, it recorded the highest score among the four measures at the end of the examination period.
When comparing each quality measure, is the quality step better than, worse than, or no different from the national benchmark over time?
In Surgical Site -Infection from colony surgery, the quality measure is much better than the national benchmark. Both scores have no noticeable difference. However, both had a similar score in 2013.
Central line-associated bloodstream infections measures do not show any difference between 2014 and 2015. However, the quality measure seems to be much better than the national benchmark in 2011 and 2012.
The national benchmark is better than quality measure in both 2014 and 2015. Both measures portrayed no difference in 2012. A quality measure is better than the national reference in 2011.
Quality measure in Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy is much better than the national benchmark in both 2014 and 2015. Both measures show no difference in 2013 and 2014 and the benchmark measure is better than quality measure in 2011.
Based on your examination of the data, which of the quality measures should you prioritize and why?
Surgical Site- Infection from colon surgery which was conducted in 2013 is among the measures which I would prioritize since it records a considerable improvement from 0.174 to 2.219. The primary reason for putting more emphasis on the above test is that it marked a significant positive change which needs to be tracked to identify the strategies that were applied.
The measure of Infection from an abdominal hysterectomy, which was conducted in 2015 is the second measure I would prioritize since it records the highest score. Notably, the test should be used to identify the procedures, strategies and equipment which were used to arrive at the score.
The measure of Infections from colony surgery conducted in 2012 stands as the third priority because it has the lowest score yet is among crucial operations undertaken in nursing units. The above-illustrated measures raise many concerns since the surgery, due to its sensitivity, requires to record the highest score yet is among the rules with the lowest performance.
Develop a quality improvement metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience relating to the identified area of opportunity.
The quality improvement metric to be developed is assessing and analyzing the readmission rates among patients to identify the quality of services rendered. Care process can be measured with the help comprehensive data regarding readmission rates among the treated patients. High rates of readmission bring forth an illustration that the care processes are not appropriately managed. As a result, healthcare units will be required to put in place measures geared towards improving the rate of the stipulated regulations. Measuring outcome is yet another aspect that can be ascertained using well-organized information on a patient’s readmission rates. It is worth to note that healthcare units recording high levels of readmission rates do not focus more on providing patient-centred services. To this, healthcare administrators can utilize readmission rates information to boost the outcome of a nursing facility, hence improved quality. Again, patients experience can as well be examined using the selected metric (readmission rate). In detailed form, high readmission rates will indicate that patients did not enjoy the treatment experience, and it is the high time for facilities to reshape its mode of operation. On the other hand, a low readmission rate shows that there was a provision of patient-centred services.
Explain how you would monitor the metric and use collected data for improvement.
Include a title slide, references slide, and comprehensive speaker notes.
Various strategies can be implemented to monitor and reduce readmission rates. It is always worth for clinicians to put a close eye on patients to reduce the chance of being readmitted. This group may include patients with acute illness required close supervision from clinicians since some may lack the necessary capacity for following prescribed medication. Health care facilitators should also ensure that patients battling with language barrier are assisted in ensuring that the information they provide is in line with their illness. It is through helping the victims to air out their health conditions that healthcare providers will be able to offer patient-centred services. Formation of incentives geared towards preventing readmission rate could as well help out in reducing the probability of a patient falling sick as a result of recently treated health condition. The initiative will require the creation of a collaborative environment between a nurse, patients and program observers. Management of readmission rates can be enhanced through putting in a place a follow-up schedule to ensure that patients meet the threshold for prescribed medication.