(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

NUR 621 Wk 5 Quality Improvement Essay NUR 621 Wk 5 Quality Improvement Essay Quality Improvement When patients visit health care organizations for medical assistance, they always look forward to a comprehensive evaluation of their health problems and treatment. As a result, health care organizations must be adequately resourced and committed to delivering quality care. Accreditation stamps an organization’s ability to provide quality care. It demonstrates that a health care organization’s performance meets the required threshold, implying that patients receive health care services in safe settings with qualified health professionals. Various organizations engage in managed care accreditation and regulation, including the National Committee for Quality Insurance (NCQA), Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC), and The Joint Commission (TJC/JC). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the body appropriate for my health care organization, accreditation requirements, relevant performance metrics, and the impact of quality performance on the organization. Accrediting Body: The Joint Commission TJC would be the most appropriate accrediting body for my health care organization. The independent, not-for-profit organization dominates standards-setting and accreditation in the United States. According to Wadhwa and Huynh (2021), TJC was established in 1951 and accredits over 20,000 health care plans and organizations seeking to optimize care outcomes. Besides quality assurance for patients, TJC also ensures that health care organizations prevent harm and improve patient advocacy. TJC suits my organization since it emphasizes more on patient safety. Approximately 70-80% of TJC responsibilities and everyday activities address patient safety (Wadhwa & Huynh, 2021). TJC’s mission also aligns with my organization’s mission. TJC strives to continuously improve public health through collaboration with stakeholders and evaluating performance standards for health care programs and organizations. Based on the performance, TJC inspires health care facilities to provide safe and effective care. Beik and Pepper (2021) noted that TJC’s visits are unannounced, considering that TJC visits the organization the day a visit is announced. As a result, an organization must observe the entire TJC’s standards to pass the accreditation test. Requirements to Obtain Accreditation Accreditation is a rigorous process whose outcomes depend on the standards that an accreditation body has set. TJC standards are based on an objective evaluation process that primarily seeks to empower health care facilities to measure, assess, and enhance performance (The Joint Commission, 2021). The primary focus is on the critical individual, system, and program-specific functions. Beik and Pepper (2021) explained that TJC standards are based on the reported adverse events in health care facilities with a high potential of harming the patients. Such events include miscommunication and medication errors. Quality measures that guide the assessment focus on population-focused commonalities such as readmissions and hospital-acquired infections (Wadhwa & Huynh, 2021). Irrespective of the standard, health care facilities must be committed to delivering quality care to satisfy TJC requirements. The basic requirement of TJC accreditation is the successful completion of an on-site survey. To meet the necessary validity and reliability threshold, trained TJC surveyors conduct the survey. Alternatively, it can be conducted by a team of trained surveyors. During the survey, medical records from randomly selected patients are used to assess an organization’s compliance with the commission’s standards (The Joint Commission, 2022). As the survey progresses, the trained surveyors interact with health care providers who interact with the patient. They further observe how care is provided. Broadly, TJC accreditation focuses on the safety aspect. The commission uses a tracer methodology to assess an organization’s compliance with safety. During the on-site survey process, TJC identifies performance issues using the individual, system, and program-specific tracers. As Finkelman (2020) posited, individual tracer focuses on a patient’s experience when obtaining care in a health care facility. In this case, it traces the patient’s experience while utilizing a health care facility’s treatment and services. A suitable illustration is tracing a patient after arriving in the emergency department through admission, triage, and screening. System-focused tracing is more extensive than individual tracing. Although it traces a patient’s experience while obtaining care, it focuses more on care coordination, communication, medication management, and other elements affecting the outcome and quality of patient-provider interaction (Wadhwa & Huynh, 2021). For instance, the tracing can start when a patient arrives for surgery and survey how care providers within and across the departments communicate and coordinate. System tracing can also focus on the discharge process and how the patient is transferred across units. Besides individual and system-focused tracing, TJC also relies on program-specific tracing. According to Wadhwa and Huynh (2021), program-specific tracing primarily involves a detailed evaluation of a program’s risks and safety concerns. Particular attention is on high-risk services or programs dealing with high-volume patient populations. A suitable example is a comprehensive cardiac care program since it is high-risk. A suitable example of a TJC standard that guides evaluation is the performance improvement accreditation standard. TJC has established a performance improvement standard for various health programs and organizations, including nursing care centers, ambulatory care, hospitals, and home care centers. Complying with this standard requires the facility’s leaders to establish performance improvement priorities in a written plan (The Joint Commission, 2021). The plan must contain five essential elements. The first element is the defined processes requiring improvement. The second element is the method that a facility uses to measure performance. The other three elements include analysis methods, interventions implemented to address deficiencies, and methods for processes monitoring and sustenance (The Joint Commission, 2021). The requirements vary depending on the standard. NUR 621 Wk 5 Quality Improvement Essay Assessment Description Write a 1,250-1,500-word essay about quality improvement. Include the following points in your essay: Evaluate which accrediting body would be most appropriate for your health care organization. Summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation. Based on your research and experience, what performance or quality metrics could you focus on for a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body? How does the quality performance financially impact the organization? Include at least three references, including the textbook. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance. Resources Collapse All ResourcesCollapse All A Mixed-Methods Study to Explore the Impact of Hospital Accreditation Read “A Mixed-Methods Study to Explore the Impact of Hospital Accreditation,” by Al-Alawy et al., from Inquiry: A Journa … Read More https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7970682/ Promoting Patients’ Rights Through Hospital Accreditation Read “Promoting Patients’ Rights Through Hospital Accreditation,” by Sperling and Pikkel, from Israel Journal of H … Read More https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7504649/ In the New Healthcare, Payers and Providers Look to Redefine Quality Read “In the New Healthcare, Payers and Providers Look to Redefine Quality,” by Leventhal, from Healthcare Informatics ( … Read More https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=130206115&site=ehost-live&scope=site Towards a Triadic Quality Measurement Framework for U.S. Healthcare Read “Towards a Triadic Quality Measurement Framework for U.S. Healthcare,” by Chakraborty, from Quality Management Jour … Read More https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10686967.2018.1404358 Economics and Financial Management for Nurses and Nurse Leaders Read Chapter 3 in Economics and Financial Management for Nurses and Nurse Leaders and review Chapter 2. View Resource Quality Improvement Essay – Rubric Collapse All Quality Improvement Essay – RubricCollapse All Appropriate Accrediting Body 16.2 points Criteria Description Appropriate Accrediting Body 5. Target 16.2 points The essay skillfully describes in a well-researched manner what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. 4. Acceptable 14.9 points The essay soundly describes in a well-researched manner what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. 3. Approaching 14.26 points The essay clearly describes what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. Some relevant and supportive research is included. 2. Insufficient 12.96 points The essay vaguely describes what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. Little relevant or supportive research is included. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The essay does not adequately describe what accrediting body would be most appropriate for the selected health care organization. No relevant or supportive research is included. Obtaining Accreditation 16.2 points Criteria Description Obtaining Accreditation 5. Target 16.2 points The essay substantially summarizes the requirements to obtain accreditation. 4. Acceptable 14.9 points The essay soundly summarizes the requirements to obtain accreditation. 3. Approaching 14.26 points The essay clearly summarizes the requirements to obtain accreditation. 2. Insufficient 12.96 points The essay does not clearly summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The essay does not adequately summarize the requirements to obtain accreditation. Quality Improvement 15.3 points Criteria Description Quality Improvement 5. Target 15.3 points The essay thoroughly and skillfully identifies what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body. 4. Acceptable 14.08 points The essay thoroughly identifies what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body. 3. Approaching 13.46 points The essay clearly identifies what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body. 2. Insufficient 12.24 points The essay does not clearly identify what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The essay does not sufficiently identify what performance or quality metrics could result in a quality improvement project to present to the accrediting body. Financial Impact 15.3 points Criteria Description Financial Impact 5. Target 15.3 points The essay comprehensively describes how the quality performance can financially impact the organization. 4. Acceptable 14.08 points The essay soundly describes how the quality performance can financially impact the organization. 3. Approaching 13.46 points The essay clearly describes how the quality performance can financially impact the organization. 2. Insufficient 12.24 points The essay does not clearly describe how the quality performance can financially impact the organization. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The essay does not sufficiently describe how the quality performance can financially impact the organization. Thesis, Position, or Purpose 6.3 points Criteria Description Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience. 5. Target 6.3 points The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience. 4. Acceptable 5.8 points The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience. 3. Approaching 5.54 points The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated. Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NUR 621 Wk 5 Quality Improvement Essay 2. Insufficient 5.04 points The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the NUR 621 Wk 5 Quality Improvement Essay appropriate audience. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident. Development, Structure, and Conclusion 7.2 points Criteria Description Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development. 5. Target 7.2 points The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. 4. Acceptable 6.62 points The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. 3. Approaching 6.34 points The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. 2. Insufficient 5.76 points Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered. Evidence 4.5 points Criteria Description Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives. 5. Target 4.5 points Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively. 4. Acceptable 4.14 points Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated. 3. Approaching 3.96 points Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used. 2. Insufficient 3.6 points Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer. Mechanics of Writing 4.5 points Criteria Description Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc. 5. Target 4.5 points No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout. 4. Acceptable 4.14 points Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used. 3. Approaching 3.96 points Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted. 2. Insufficient 3.6 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout. Format/Documentation 4.5 points Criteria Description Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., 5. Target 4.5 points No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated. 4. Acceptable 4.14 points Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors. 3. Approaching 3.96 points Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors. 2. Insufficient 3.6 points Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided. Order Now