Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Essentials of Strategic Planning in Healthcare
on the cause of these problems and how to address them. Healthcare executives must part- ner with physicians, nurses, and other clinicians to determine the best metrics to improve quality and to ensure positive patient outcomes and financial success for the organization.
c O m pa r at i v e O u t c O m e s
In the early 1900s, Dr. Ernest Codman, a pioneering surgeon and an advocate of healthcare reform, researched healthcare quality by measuring quality outcomes. His end results theory advocated measuring patient care to assess hospital efficiency and to identify clinical errors or other problems. The American College of Surgeons adopted his theory as a minimum quality standard. Based on this theory, the college created the Hospital Standardization Program, which later evolved into the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (now simply the Joint Commission). Codman also believed in public report- ing of quality, a concept being embraced today, a century later.
The American Hospital Association has also encouraged providers to establish qual- ity assurance programs to audit outcomes of care. The most comprehensive evaluation of hospital quality today is the CMS’s Hospital Comparing website (www.medicare.gov/ hospital compare/search.html). Hospital Compare allows for the comparison of up to three hospitals on measures of quality. The measures are grouped into six categories: survey of patients’ experiences, timely and effective care, complications and death, unplanned hospital admissions, psychiatric unit services, and payment and value of care. Other public reporting agencies and sites use data from the CMS measures. Hospital Compare has a consumer orientation, providing information on how well hospitals provide the recommended care to their patients. It also enables organizations to benchmark their performance against that of other hospitals in their community or state or nationally.
Organizations’ initial purpose for the transparency of publicly reported healthcare processes and outcomes was to help patients make informed decisions. Today’s consumer wants to consider the advantages and risks of recommended treatments. Besides gathering data from patient-satisfaction measures, healthcare organizations must also understand, define, and measure quality of care themselves. While patient satisfaction is not the only indicator of quality care, it is a significant goal. Providers could achieve exemplary clini- cal outcomes but have negative patient satisfaction scores if they have poor interpersonal skills or lack sensitivity to cultural differences among their patients. Public and private groups, such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), have developed tools for measuring and reporting healthcare quality. The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS; see highlight 12.1) and the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS; see highlight 12.2) are two other examples. Many hospitals use HCAHPS to assess patient experience and HEDIS to measure clinical performance in the outpatient setting.
Copying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without written permission. For permission, please contact Copyright Clearance Center at www.copyright.com
Harrison, Jeffrey P.. Essentials of Strategic Planning in Healthcare, Third Edition, Health Administration Press, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=6349384. Created from apus on 2022-03-25 01:06:10.
rv e d .
C h a p t e r 1 2 : Q u a l i t y , S a f e t y , P a t i e n t E x p e r i e n c e , a n d V a l u e 2 6 1
HIGHLIGHT 12.1 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems
HCAHPS (typically pronounced “H-Caps”) is a survey used to measure patient expe-
riences with healthcare providers. Use of this standardized survey allows providers
to compare their patients’ experiences with those of other patients across the United
States. All patients are asked the same questions, and all results are measured accord-
ing to the same rating scale. Patients respond by answering “always,” “usually,” “some-
times,” or “never” to most of the survey questions. Without a standardized survey,
comparisons of quality of care would be impossible.
The survey focuses on the following areas:
the hospital?
CMS implemented the HCAHPS survey in October 2006, and hospitals first publicly
reported the results in March 2008. The survey, its methodology, and its results are in
the public domain and can be found on the Hospital Compare website. Since July 2007,
hospitals receiving Medicare payments must collect and submit HCAHPS data to receive
their full annual payment. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) requires HCAHPS to be
included among the measures used to calculate incentive payments in the value-based
purchasing program.
*
Copying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without written permission. For permission, please contact Copyright Clearance Center at www.copyright.com
Harrison, Jeffrey P.. Essentials of Strategic Planning in Healthcare, Third Edition, Health Administration Press, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=6349384. Created from apus on 2022-03-25 01:06:10.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Essentials of Strategic Planning in Healthcare |
Essentials of Strategic Planning in Healthcare