s3807632edited
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
American Sentinel University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
421
Subject
Health Science
Date
Jun 13, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
11
Uploaded by JusticeTurtleMaster2739
1
Developing a Change Project
Student’s Name
University
Course
Professor
Date
2
Developing a Change Project
Healthcare quality and improvement are initiated and accomplished by change projects that aim to enhance the provision of healthcare services towards improving patient outcomes while minimizing the overall costs and enhancing the organizational image and reputation through patient satisfaction. Healthcare is one of the most complex and dynamic industries that faces continuous changes, innovations and adaptations that bring new challenges and opportunities. As such, healthcare stakeholders have to constantly perform change evaluations and initiate change projects that improve healthcare by meeting the ever-changing patients’ needs, requirements, and preferences (
Hospodkova et al., 2021)
. In this change project, the review outlines the steps of implementation of advanced health assessment through an integrated
multidisciplinary approach. Rationale for the Change
The rationale for the proposed change is embedded in the fact that multidisciplinary patient assessment in healthcare leads to increased accuracy, efficiency, and comprehensive outcomes that facilitate accurate and correct diagnosis and treatment process for most positive patient outcomes (Berardi et al., 2020; Taberna et al., 2020). Fragmented assessments significantly lead to delayed diagnoses with the risk of inaccuracies as there could be missed symptoms and suboptimal patient care. However, assessment that is hinged on collaboration and teamwork counters all these inefficiencies, leading to improved assessments in all healthcare departments that translate to healthcare quality. According to the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (2021), autopsy reports in the
United States note that major diagnostic errors account for 10-20% of deaths, translating to about
40,000 to 80,000 deaths in the United States due to diagnostic errors, as also reported by Cantey
3
(2020). Therefore, by standardizing the assessment procedures through integrated and advanced diagnostic knowledge, skills, and technological tools by multidisciplinary personnel, reduced diagnostic errors could be achieved. Cantey (2020) notes that the implementation of multidisciplinary and standardized assessment efforts and protocols in health facilities could improve diagnostic errors by up to 15%. Further, this approach leads to streamlined processes in health departments, enhancing efficiency as the time taken for assessments is reduced while resource utilization is optimized, in addition to reduced hospital stays and readmissions by patients. Additionally, the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in patient assessment that includes all healthcare providers and personnel improves the quality of health services provision, leading to institutional benefits such as an improved reputation for improved competitive advantage and operational efficiencies that cut operational costs. Desired Outcomes
The main desired outcome for this project is to enhance the quality of healthcare assessment during the diagnosis process by facilitating efficiency to ensure patient satisfaction and subsequent improved health outcomes. The interdisciplinary patient assessment approach aims to reduce diagnostic errors by inputting integrated protocols that ensure collaboration during assessments to reduce diagnostic errors by 20% in the 12 months after the implementation
of the project. As earlier noted, poor assessment outcomes due to fragmented assessments lead to
diagnostic errors that lead to grievous medical outcomes for both patients and the organization. However, when standardized collaborative approaches and strategies are implemented by healthcare facilities, improved diagnostic outcomes are achieved. Additionally, when these protocols are bolstered with technological tools that improve assessment, more assessment outcomes will be achieved as technological approaches capture more critical and detailed data
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
during patient assessment (Ali et al., 2019; Espay et al., 2019). The integration of multidisciplinary collaboration and technological tools increases the efficiency of assessment processes, impacting the quality of healthcare provision. Another important desired outcome for the project is to significantly reduce the time for patient assessment by 10% in a period of 10 months upon implementation of the project. Fragmented assessments of patients are time-consuming as different health personnel have to assess patients in different instances with lengthy documentation and time taken to move around departments; however, with established collaborative assessment protocols that also incorporate technology, the time for assessment is reduced, streamlining the process of accurately and effectively capturing patient symptoms towards effective treatment. Consequently, when less time is spent on the diagnosis and assessment of patients, more time and effort is put into the care
treatment of patients, leading to quality care outcomes while optimizing resource usage. With improved diagnosis that minimizes diagnostic errors while reducing diagnosis time, this project also aims to improve patient satisfaction in the facility by 20% in the next 12 months after initiation. This desired outcome will be assessed after six months to ensure the meeting of the target. Importantly, as suggested by Fitzpatrick (2022), patient satisfaction is influenced by the assessment and diagnostic process in a health facility. Collaborative patient assessment improves patients’ feeling of being cared for, boosting their trust and confidence while enhancing
communication. Patients feel that the combined efforts are a commitment by the health facility to
ensuring their positive health outcomes as opposed to fragmented assessments. As such, trust, confidence, and the feeling of being maximally catered to enhance patient satisfaction, leading to
positive treatment responses.
5
One of the major desired outcomes for this project is the institutionalization of interdisciplinary collaborations not only in patient assessment but also in all other healthcare processes. With the implementation of the project and the dissemination of the outcomes, the project hopes to foster a culture of interdisciplinary collaboration among personnel that extends to every aspect that is professional and personal. As such, in the next 6 months, the project aims to improve inter-professional and inter-personal collaborations by 12%. As the collaboration improves healthcare in the facility, it should also improve professional development through the exchange of ideas and knowledge among the professionals.
Target Audience
This project targets a number of key groups that serve as the target audience, in which their contribution and engagement will facilitate the achievement of the desired outcomes. The first target audience is healthcare personnel in the facility. This group is made up of Physicians, nurses, and all allied health professionals whose knowledge, skills, and expertise are required in the collaborative process of the assessments. The developed protocols and standards will be influenced by this group whose input will help to shape the project’s main principle. Importantly,
upon the development of the protocols for multidisciplinary assessment, it is the healthcare providers who will use and adhere to the protocols. The second target audience group is the institutional leadership, who are the executives whose power has the ability to determine the development, initiation, and success of the project through approvals, critical decision-making such as funding, and the provision of the overall overseeing advice and evaluation. The project’s resources are entirely in the hands of the institution's leadership, whose decisions determine the direction of the project. Therefore, effective pitching of the project to the leadership is key in influencing their contribution. The last target group is the patient fraternity in the facility. This
6
group will directly benefit from the project, making their adherence and compliance important aspects of the success of the project. Benefits to the Institution
The implementation of the proposed project comes with major benefits to the institution based on the impact it will have on improved healthcare quality. As health provision will be improved through high-end patient assessments, patients' satisfaction will be improved, resulting in an enhanced reputation for the institution (Hussain et al., 2019; Mulugeta et al., 2019). Consequently, the institution's competitive edge in the advancing and dynamic healthcare sector will be increased, positioning itself as a leader in quality healthcare provision. Further, this project also improves the compliance levels of the institution through the achievement of low diagnostic and subsequent medication errors due to multidisciplinary assessment and patient care. Another benefit to the organization, as elaborated by Gengoux et al. (2020)
, is that when healthcare staff collaborate and work together, their job satisfaction levels improve through enhanced workflows characterized by increased motivation and ideas-sharing while complementing each other. This aspect translates into improved work efficiency and overall productivity while staff develop a sense of belonging. Lastly, as efficiency is achieved in the facility, operational costs are optimized, and additional costs for diagnostic errors will be cut. Allocation of Resources and Potential Budget
Proper budgeting and outlining of required resources are important to streamline the project’s implementation. The following is an outline of the required resources and budget;
Resources/requirements
Budget
Advanced diagnostic tools
$150,000
Technological integration of the diagnostic $50,000
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
tools into the HIS Training program on the usage of the new system
$100,000
Upgrade of the current infrastructure to meet the new system’s workflow and equipment installations
$150,000
Total: $450,000
The Project Initiative’s Leadership The success of the project heavily depends on the chosen leadership team that spearheads
the project through a combination of leadership and healthcare skills. The leadership will comprise a team with different expertise led by an experienced healthcare administrator, who will serve as the project manager. This leader has the capability to steer change projects, having possessed the knowledge, skill, and experience of health improvement changes. The assistant project manager will be an experienced physician who has experienced the burden of fragmented
diagnosis and has the urge for improved diagnostic outcomes. In the leadership team will also be the chief information technology officer responsible for overseeing all technological aspects of the project. The nursing unit's senior officer will also be part of the leadership to oversee and contribute to the training programs that equip healthcare providers with the required skills for the
new system while ensuring compliance from nurses. Lastly, a patient representative will also be part of the leadership to provide patient perspectives necessary for effective customization of the system to meet patients' needs and preferences. Significantly, this diverse leadership team is made up of experienced individuals who bring together different knowledge and skills from leadership, healthcare, and technology to enhance the success of the project.
8
Proposed Timeline
Timeline
Activity
Overview
Month 1 and 2
Planning and approval
This period involves the briefing of the project to the leadership to secure approval and provision of the proposed
budget while putting together the required team for the project.
Months 3 and 4
Set-up
Involves the procurement of the required resources and equipment while training the staff and upgrading the institution’s infrastructure for the integration of the system.
Months 5 and 6
Implementation
Rolling out the pilot project followed by monitoring and evaluation. Months 7 and 8
Evaluation and reporting progress
Using key performance indicators to assess the functionality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the project to identify areas that require adjustments and
9
improvement. After adjustments, the result of the progress is reported to the key
stakeholders for decision-
making on the institutionalization of the project. Measures of Success
The project aims to improve the assessment of patients to achieve improved healthcare quality by reducing diagnostic errors. As such, the first measure of the success of the project is the overall reduction of diagnostic errors assessed by the comparison between the level of errors before the project and after the implementation of the project. Secondly, the reported quality of healthcare provision will also form part of the metric for the project's success rate, in which the rate of hospital stays and readmissions will be monitored and compared after the implementation of the project (Muchiri et al., 2022). Patients’ satisfaction levels will also be assessed through survey questionnaires as another key measure of success, as higher levels of patient satisfaction indicate the success of the project. Reduction in operational costs after the implementation of the project will also be another measure of success in which the costs for misdiagnosis and diagnosis
errors will be significantly reduced while workflows are enhanced.
References
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
10
Ali, M. S., Prieto-Alhambra, D., Lopes, L. C., Ramos, D., Bispo, N., Ichihara, M. Y., ... & Smeeth, L. (2019). Propensity score methods in health technology assessment: principles,
extended applications, and recent advances.
Frontiers in Pharmacology
,
10
, 973.
Berardi, R., Morgese, F., Rinaldi, S., Torniai, M., Mentrasti, G., Scortichini, L., & Giampieri, R. (2020). Benefits and limitations of a multidisciplinary approach in cancer patient management.
Cancer Management and Research
, 9363-9374.
Cantey, C. (2020). The practice of medicine: understanding diagnostic error.
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners
,
16
(8), 582-585.
Espay, A. J., Hausdorff, J. M., Sánchez‐Ferro, Á., Klucken, J., Merola, A., Bonato, P., ... & Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Technology. (2019). A roadmap for implementation of patient‐centered digital outcome measures in Parkinson's disease obtained using mobile health technologies.
Movement Disorders
,
34
(5), 657-663.
Fitzpatrick, R. (2022). Satisfaction with health care. In
The Experience of Illness
(pp. 154-176). Routledge.
Gengoux, G., Zack, S. E., Derenne, J. L., Robinson, A., Dunn, L. B., & Roberts, L. W. (2020).
Professional well-being: enhancing wellness among psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health clinicians
. American Psychiatric Pub.
Hospodkova, P., Berežná, J., Bartak, M., Rogalewicz, V., Severova, L., & Svoboda, R. (2021, November). Change management and digital innovations in hospitals of five European countries. In
Healthcare
(Vol. 9, No. 11, p. 1508). MDPI.
11
Hussain, A., Sial, M. S., Usman, S. M., Hwang, J., Jiang, Y., & Shafiq, A. (2019). What factors affect patient satisfaction in public sector hospitals: Evidence from an emerging economy.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
,
16
(6), 994.
Muchiri, S., Azadeh-Fard, N., & Pakdil, F. (2022). The analysis of hospital readmission rates after the implementation of hospital readmissions reduction program.
Journal of Patient Safety
,
18
(3), 237-244.
Mulugeta, H., Wagnew, F., Dessie, G., Biresaw, H., & Habtewold, T. D. (2019). Patient satisfaction with nursing care in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC Nursing
,
18
, 1-12.
Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine. (2021). What is diagnostic error? https://www.improvediagnosis.org/what-is-diagnostic-error/
Taberna, M., Gil Moncayo, F., Jané-Salas, E., Antonio, M., Arribas, L., Vilajosana, E., ... & Mesía, R. (2020). The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach and quality of care.
Frontiers in Oncology
,
10
, 85.