NURS 8302 Discussion Measurement Systems and Methods

NURS 8302 Discussion Measurement Systems and Methods
NURS 8302 Discussion Measurement Systems and Methods
The need to ensure that the experiences of patients in hospitals have improved have led to the creation of many tools that play important roles in measuring their experiences, tracking them and using them to establish improvement objectives. The need to measure patient experiences receives backing from the fact that it forms an important outcome for clinical safety and effectiveness. At the ACS Hospital, the management will measure the experiences hence perceptions of patients concerning the health care services using certain qualitative and quantitative methodologies. According to LaVella and Gallan (2014), these two methodologies have increasingly gained a prominent role in ensuring that the perceptions of patients receive the necessary attention from health care facilities administrations. The fundamental approaches employed to measure patient experiences include patient forums, focus groups, interviews, unit-level or department/ward surveys, as well as informal feedback gained via patient service organizations or advocacy groups. Moreover, the hospital may also utilize approaches such as website commentaries, formal complaints and feedback concerning performance of care providers for purposes of appraisal. In addition to the patient-reported outcomes and direct feedback above, the ACK Hospital could also employ the usage of administrative databases/ charts, performance measures and staff observations as approaches to collect data on patient satisfaction (LaVella & Gallan, 2014). Further, certain ethnographic and observational approaches such as patient health care process mapping or journey mapping and unobtrusive observation. Mystery mapping observing and rounding, shadowing, and video recording may also inform the hospital’s analysis, tracking and improvement of patient goals. The purposes of the above measurements entail understanding patient satisfaction, patient perceptions, and patient preferences of the hospital’s services as regards such factors as communication with doctors, end of life care, and pain management during hospital visit by nurses. .
The goals at the present health care setting were established in line with the above metrics. According to the mission and vision of the place, ensuring that the quality of care services improve forms a fundamental objective of the organization. Indeed, the primary goal of the hospital entails the adoption of evidence-based practices in care so as to enhance patient experiences hence satisfaction. Moreover, the hospital has established an online website patients provide their feedbacks anonymously pursuant to Ilioudi, Lazakidou, and Tsironi (2013). The objective herein, according to the hospital, encompasses evaluation of the patience experiences and perceptions of the hospital’s services. An observation of these objectives reveals that the hospital staff strive to meet these goals. As an example, the percentage of patients who demonstrated satisfaction with pain management and doctors’ communication improved by 20%. In addition, the average rating of the hospital services has increased to 4.5 out of 5.00 after the interaction of the measures. These two phenomena indicatively suggest that the hospital currently meets the metrics.
However, even as the hospital strives to ensure that it improves its services internally through various strategies, exposure to certain provocative emerging issues abounds. Weech-Maldonado et al. (2013) assert that the emergence of the The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) as a tool to measure patient satisfaction has led to certain conflicts between hospital settings and the tool. According to studies done on the effectiveness of the CAHPS, certain patients offer conflicting answers to patient surveys concerning various parameters. As a consequence, certain disparities have existed between hospital-based surveys and the CAHPS survey as concerns patient satisfaction with hospital services. However, the usage of CAHPS at the hospital has allowed the management to tailor their patient experience methodologies to become more accurate when used. Therefore, the CAHPS has led to positive improvements concerning the patient experience measuring and tracking tools in addition to ensuring that the hospital meets the set thresholds. .
References
Ilioudi, S., Lazakidou, A., & Tsironi, M. (2013). Importance of patient satisfaction measurement and electronic surveys : Methodology and potential benefits. International Journal of Health Research and Innovation, 1(1), 67-87.
LaVella, S., & Gallan, A. (2014). Evaluation and measurement of patient experience. Patient Experience Journal, 1(1), 28-36.
Weech-Maldonado, R., Carle, A., Weidmer, B., Hurtado, M., Ngo-Metzger, Q., & Hays, R. D. (2013). The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) cultural competence (CC) item set. Medical care, 50(9 Suppl 2), S22-31.
You are a DNP-prepared nurse working at a hospital focused on improving patient satisfaction. After receiving care at your hospital, patients are provided a scorecard to survey their patient experience. The patient surveys range in questions from wait time to effectiveness of care, and these surveys provide your hospital with a scorecard indicating how the hospital is performing against these metrics. Upon reviewing the scorecards, you are able to highlight areas of improvement and areas of success, however, you find the responses are often difficult to analyze, as there are a wide range of responses, and there are many variables.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
The process of constructing a balanced scorecard for the tracking of patient satisfaction can be controversial. For example, a hospital’s patient satisfaction scorecard provides a snapshot of gathered data for the hospital, but the data may be out of context, which makes it difficult to identify specific problems. It is evident that both scorecards and dashboards have a place in the healthcare setting; however, will all organizations and accrediting bodies agree on the aspects of implementation, data analysis, and levels of effectiveness?
For this Discussion, you will explore key indicators involved with the use of scorecards and dashboards for tracking organizational performance. Reflect on a particular healthcare organization or nursing practice with an established scorecard or dashboard measuring patient experience.
To Prepare:
Review the Learning Resources for this week, and reflect on how a healthcare organization or nursing practice setting uses scorecards and dashboards.
Select any healthcare organization or nursing practice setting that has an established scorecard or dashboard measuring patient
NURS 8302 Discussion Measurement Systems and Methods
experience and improvement goals.
Be sure to obtain an example of the scorecard or dashboard from the healthcare organization or nursing practice setting (you selected) for this Discussion.
Reflect on how these measurement systems and measurement methods may impact organizational goal setting in the areas of overall performance and financial stability.
Explore the key indicators involved with scorecards and dashboards, as well as the external quality standards to which they are compared.
Reflect on what the metrics used in the balanced scorecards and dashboards might mean to your specific organization and/or nursing practice. Has your organization established goals for these or similar metrics and are they currently being met? Why, or why not?
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post a brief description of the healthcare organization or nursing practice setting you selected. Summarize the measures on the scorecard or dashboard in which patient experience of care is measured, tracked, and used to set improvement goals. Be specific. Explain whether goals at your organization are established, for these metrics you reviewed, and whether or not they are currently being met. Then, describe the potential impacts of meeting or not meeting these metrics for your healthcare organization, and explain why. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 5
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by expanding upon your colleague’s post or offering an alternative interpretation of the patient experience measures described by your colleague as they might relate to your specific practice or organization.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 5 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 5
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent
90–100
Good
80–89
Fair
70–79
Poor
: 0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100