As noted by Hsu (2010), the roles of public and private sectors in the provision of healthcare services change over time. In the private sector, the benefits of the healthcare provision are estimated and evaluated based on the efficiency of the services and the generated profit (Hsu, 2010). Efficiency is also the focus of the public sector that is heavily impacted by the waste of resources that may occur due to such happenings as fraud, abuse, malpractice, and administration errors among others. To eliminate and exclude these negative impacts on efficiency, the agencies improve quality. For instance, FDA (2006) (a public agency) regulates quality through a series of policies that ensure testing of the products and also oblige the manufacturers to employ risk management strategies that are seen as the way to minimize costs through avoiding wasting investments on defective production. Mayo Clinic (non-profit private agency) views quality as combined of positive outcomes, improved service, and safety (Swensen et al., 2009). The approaches of both agencies are similar as they attempt to address the issues of quality using the upstream strategy and integrate the process and operations quality. That way, the cost of the processes increases but is compensated through the higher efficiency and the elimination of pricy errors.
To regulate and maintain quality, FDA (2006) uses a specialized quality systems model that I comprised of four factors (management responsibilities, resources, manufacturing operations, and evaluation activities). Allocation and alignment of resources play a vital role in the model implementation. The resources required for the maintenance of quality involve facilities, equipment, personnel training, control over the outsourced operations, control of materials, and the final product testing (FDA, 2006). As for Mayo Clinic, its quality strategy is based on four aspects such as engineering, infrastructure, culture, and execution; its primary objective is to ensure excellent patient care (Swensen et al., 2009). When it comes to the business aspect of the quality improvement, the authors of the article state: “Reducing waste and variation is the primary source of cost savings that leads to improving the value of our care”; the formula employed by Mayo Clinic is “Value = Quality [Outcomes, Safety, Service]/Cost” (Swensen et al., 2009, p. 433). That way, the non-profit agency attempts to turn the quality improvement into a business strategy but not expenditure. Improper quality improvement policies may result in creating even more pressure on the nurses increasing the organization’s demands. As an unintended consequence, the staff may fail to fulfill their duties.
When it comes to the implications for the staff nurses and advanced practice nurses, the FDA’s assistance in the maintenance and improvement of quality of services includes obliging the manufacturers to provide clear descriptions, instructions, and packaging for the products to avoid administration errors and mix-ups that could endanger the lives of the patients and result in reputation and financial costs for the hospitals, nursing homes, and medical centers. The role of private agencies such as Mayo Clinic is to create an environment for the nurses to carry out their duties properly. Such environments involve the maintenance of harmonious relationships within the staff, fair allocation of workloads, and length of the shifts. Otherwise, in a hasty and unsafe environment, nurses who are overloaded with work and are forced to do their work very quickly in order to attend to multiple patients may make mistakes and endanger the lives of the patients and their own careers.
References
FDA. (2006). Guidance for Industry Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP Regulations. Web.
Hsu, J. (2010). The relative efficiency of public and private service delivery. World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 39, 1-9.
Swensen, S. J., Dilling, J. A., Milliner, D. S., Zimmerman, R. S., Maples, W. J., Lindsay, M. E., & Bartley, G. B. (2009). Quality: The Mayo Clinic Approach. American Journal of Medical Quality, 24(5), 428-440.