Introduction
The persistent flexibility within healthcare institutions requires more robust empirical methodologies for monitoring as well as evaluating programs. These include both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures within the hospitals or other healthcare provision centers. The emergent public health problems within developed and developing nations have led to increased global monitoring of the potential causes of mortality amongst patients.
Therefore, the quality of treatment services has been eminent in terms of lifestyle diseases such as heart complications and diabetes (Donaldson, 1991). The Baptist Medical center includes one of the healthcare providers embracing robust monitoring systems to support their benchmarking practices within the patient health improvement projects. The real-time data collection, analysis, presentation as well as communication have also become pertinent components of such initiative.
It is basically noticeable that without proper benchmarking and compliance to the set quality and assurance controls, there are likely to be more challenges and lost lives within such institutions. This perhaps elucidates the basic reason behind the institution of various benchmarking models within the management of the Baptist Medical Center as a key health care provider.
This discussion presents the analysis of the benchmarking process, describing the tools applied and the analysis results of the real-time data collected from the therapeutic monitoring process. Furthermore, it presents the quality practice issues proposed for this initiative and discusses various options or solutions to the eminent challenges from the change process.
Background and Context of the Practice Issue
The need for continuous improvement and enhancement of proper healthcare practices within the health care centers has practically become eminent. In an attempt to uphold this practice, proper monitoring as well as benchmarking practices have continuously become vital in the health care dispensation centers.
According to the Baptist Medical Center, there is an important need to review the performance as well as deliverables or outcomes of the hospital. From a wider perspective, this initiative and practice issue is to play a significant role in the comparison with other potential peers of the hospital.
Furthermore, this practice issue is vital for the recognition as well as identification of other opportunities existent within the area of practice. Some of the quality as defined within OPI reveals distinct models that are more pragmatic and practical in enhancing as well as monitoring the benchmarking process and practice issues. The OPI care transitions flowchart, for instance, provides an integrated chat analysis of a specific process employed within certain processes of patient therapy.
Through the chat analysis, the trained personnel are able to actively monitor the therapeutic interventions or process within a specified time or duration. Moreover, there is a potential possibility or competency of the health care provider together with other parties involved to be engaged in the process adjustment. This is specifically if the data provided does not comply or tally with the already provided benchmarking standards.
Observably, there in deed exist several and diverse dimensions or models of the quality as identified or recognized within the IOM. The IOM refers to specifically efficient as well effective model distinct to a particular therapeutic or medical intervention. Indeed, this is critical in enhancing quality practice without confusions or malpractice of the personnel involved within the various processes (Donaldson, 1991).
Delegation, thus, becomes a critical tool towards enhancing accountability and answerability of the various monitoring units. The Gantt chart provides the application of various approaches to monitoring and benchmarking ranging from the potential x1 to potential x6.
The application of potential X1 involves the two-sample T-test with the various medically and statistically drawn samples for analysis. There is a consequent data collection, graphical analysis, as well as hypothesis tests and correlation analysis. This process majorly occurs within the 90 days as specified by the GHANNT chart application for the congestive heart failure patients or clients.
The final results have varied conclusions and implications on the process and the client. In the application of potential x2, the similar process for the GHANNT chart application follows as the one in the potential x2. The unique observation within potential x2 is, however, that, there are exceptions. This is because about four cases never received the actual full therapy. This, as presented form the analysis of the clinicians was because these patients never suffered from a uniform complication as compared to the others.
There were other additional illnesses notable in the patients (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Generally, it is observable that the quality models presented here enables the clinicians to be able to make wider comparisons over a range of cases and conditions amongst many clients. This merit enables a comparable benchmarking process and therefore gives room for more quality improvements in care and opportunity for further research and advancement in therapeutic methodologies.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Change for the Proposed Quality Initiative
According to the six sigma model, there is a consecutive evaluative procedure that allows the room for effective monitoring of all cases involved in the processes. This can observably be conducted by a considerably limited number of professionals with an advantage of cost reductions (Lewis & Passmore, 2011).
The basic and fundamental of this practice issue as well as the proposed models are to initiate change process and transformation within the internal medical practice in the Baptist Center health care agency. Although most of the interventions are empirically executed and committed, it is crucial to note that these have a consequential vital implication considering the theoretical perspectives. Definitely, the FMEA model or proposition or presents a pragmatic transformation path that a medical organization can execute to enhance their improvement or development.
The basic principle underlying the processes proposed here is therefore to institute pragmatic and practical approaches of enhancing medical service provision. This may be basically in terms of quality, monitoring as well as ensuring adherence to the existent benchmarking standards. The change is likely to emanate right from the medical wards where the actual service provision is conducted to the mainstream of the health care management system. The overall impact therefore remains to be a more advantageous and constructive benefit to all the hospital clients.
The Six-Sigma for the Quality Improvement Project
This model presents a quality improvement initiative that aims to enhance a continuous process of service improvement. As implemented within the hospital or therapeutic processes, this model involves the integration of a consecutive six-staged intervention to ensure there is compliance to the benchmarking standards (Robin, 2009).
A consequent review of the model integrates the monitoring as well as evaluation of the outcomes or project deliverables. On a real time basis, the patient can be monitored within different segments and the paths. On a real time basis, the patient can be monitored within different segments and the path to therapy correlated appropriately with other outcomes in the different units. The inclusion to therapy correlated appropriately with other outcomes in the different units (Pyzdek, 2003).
The inclusion process must also involve the diagnosis as well as the necessary structural requirements. These structural requirements must include the drugs, structures, as well as the personnel. The six steps are also invariable and are based on the empirical analysis procedure.
The Root Cause Analysis
The importance of the root cause analysis as an improvement toll in the comprehension of the practice issue remains largely notable. The root cause analysis stresses on the importance of the application of initial processes including investigations, assessments, surveys as well as medical diagnosis in the detection of the problem or challenge (Lewis & Passmore, 2011).
However, this remains invariably applicable amongst different situations as well as diverse patients or clients. It actually forms the basic spring board from which the other implications from the study are referred to. Considering this perspective, the root cause analysis is a benchmark for the entire positive together with the notable negative influences drawn from the monitoring processes. The practice issue can therefore be understood in relating these negative or positive occurrences drawn from the change process.
Resources Required For the Organizational Systems Change
Notably, the organizational systems change requires a large range of investment on resources. These range from qualified personnel, structural inputs as well as monetary investments (Cummings & Worley, 2009). There is need to employ qualified and skilled human resource with the ability to comprehend and implement the appropriate interventions for change processes. Additionally, both financial as well as structural requirements are vital to aid the process. This is basically because some initiatives are majorly empirical and require sophisticated machinery and large amounts of money.
Proposed Evaluation Method (S)
Data collection involving both qualitative as well as quantitative analysis techniques was applicable for this process. The process monitoring was very critical in enhancing this initiative. Furthermore, design or reporting tools for progress reports as well as measuring of potential indicators and deliverables will not only help in monitoring but also assist in verifying the real time empirical data derived from the patient support medical equipment (Institute of Medicine, 2006).
The effectiveness of the intervention was critically observed to be fair. Analysis and presentation tools applied in the process involved majorly statistical methods that basically presented a positive performance. This was considering the cost effectiveness and efficiency. The application of qualitative data would be practically helpful in the presentation of findings from key informant interviews and patient interrogations that cannot be presented or analyzed quantitatively.
Conclusion
Generally, the benchmarking initiatives remain very important components of quality improvement within organizations such as healthcare providers. It is more critical to observe the positive effects of this process within health care provision areas. An application of empirical processes within such settings, particularly in the monitoring processes is vital in setting hypothesis. Data collection as well as statistical approaches is also essential components of the processes involved in benchmarking.
When this is conducted within clinical settings, the professionals ought to be keen in matters concerning ethics and human dignity. The implication of the findings in enhancing change and transformation initiatives within the organizations is critical. There is also great importance of organizations getting involved in active research to identify better ways of performance improvement and setting proper benchmarking standards.
References
Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2009). Organization development & change. Australia: South-Western/Cengage Learning.
Donaldson, M. (1991). Medicare–new directions in quality assurance: Proceedings of an invitational conference. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
G.Robin, H. (2009). Six sigma: Quality improvement with minitab. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Institute of Medicine (U.S.). (2006). Next steps toward higher quality health care. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
Lewis, S. & Passmore, J. (2011). Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development. London: Kogan PAGE.
Pyzdek, T. (2003). The Six Sigma project planner: A step-by-step guide to leading a Six Sigma project through DMAIC. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.