Nurse Writing Services

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

New Samples

Struggling With Your Assessments? Get Help From Our Tutors

    NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

    Student Name

    Capella University

    NHS-FPX 6004 Health Care Law and Policy

    Prof. Name

    Date

    Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

    Healthcare organizations globally are dedicated to enhancing quality and safety standards within the healthcare systems to align with national, state, and federal benchmarks. To achieve this, organizations focus on developing quality and safety programs, utilizing performance dashboards as key indicators. Performance dashboards offer insights into current practices and quality/safety indicators, aiding organizations in evaluating outcomes and implementing actions for continuous improvement (Helminski et al., 2022).

    This assessment centers on evaluating the dashboard metrics of Vila Health Organization in comparison to national, state, or federal benchmarks. It aims to identify any shortcomings and discuss potential repercussions. The analysis will pinpoint specific benchmark underperformance, propose strategies for improvement, and suggest ethical and sustainable actions for stakeholders.

    Benchmark Evaluation with Metrics from Mercy Medical Center (MMC)

    The selected dashboard metrics, sourced from Mercy Medical Center, a renowned healthcare organization, include eye examination, foot examination, and HBA1c, assessed quarterly for 2019 and 2020. The data reveals variations, particularly in foot and HBA1c examinations, critical for diabetic patients. Comparing MMC metrics to national benchmarks indicates substantial gaps, necessitating improvements in quality and performance.

    Notably, foot examination benchmarks set by the National Healthcare Quality and Disparity Report (NHQDR) recommend 84% annually, but MMC recorded only 40% in 2019 and 42% in 2020. Similarly, HBA1c tests in 2019 and 2020 were at 37.3% and 48.3%, respectively, below the national benchmark of 79.5% (AHRQ, n.d.).

    Consequences of Benchmark Non-Compliance

    The discrepancies between MMC’s performance and national benchmarks, especially in foot and HBA1c examinations, can lead to adverse consequences for diabetic patients. These include increased hospital readmissions, higher morbidity and mortality rates, potential damage to the organization’s reputation, and financial burdens due to penalties associated with high readmission rates (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2023).

    Failure to conduct necessary tests may result in improper diagnosis and treatment, leading to poor patient outcomes. The consequences extend to limited healthcare access for patients and diminished trust in the organization. Dissatisfaction among healthcare teams and a tarnished reputation within the sector are additional repercussions.

    Analysis of Underperformed Benchmark

    The national benchmarks for foot examination and HBA1c testing emphasize their crucial role in diabetes prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. HBA1c serves as a reliable biomarker, providing insights into glycemic control, while regular foot examinations help prevent diabetic foot complications. Organizations meeting these benchmarks are likely to improve patient outcomes and enhance organizational performance (CDC, 2022).

    Ethical and Sustainable Strategies for Benchmark Improvement

    To address benchmark underperformance, MMC should adopt ethical and sustainable actions based on principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Key actions include:

    1. Informing patients about the importance of tests, aligning with the principle of autonomy.
    2. Providing education and training for healthcare staff to raise awareness and ensure beneficence and justice in patient care.

    In conclusion, evaluating dashboard metrics against national benchmarks is crucial for healthcare organizations. Identifying and addressing shortcomings through ethical and sustainable actions can lead to improved quality of care, organizational performance, and patient outcomes.

    References

    AHRQ. (n.d.). National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports (NHQDR). NHQDR Data Tools | AHRQ Data Tools. Retrieved from. https://datatools.ahrq.gov/nhqdr?count=2&tab=nhqdrnabe&type=subtab

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Retrieved from. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/acuteinpatientpps/readmissions-reduction-program

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). All about your A1C. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/managing/managing-blood-sugar/a1c.html

    NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

    Cheraghi, R., Valizadeh, L., Zamanzadeh, V., Hassankhani, H., & Jafarzadeh, A. (2023). Clarification of ethical principle of the beneficence in nursing care: An integrative review. BMC Nursing, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01246-4

    Helminski, D., Kurlander, J. E., Renji, A. D., Sussman, J. B., Pfeiffer, P. N., Conte, M. L., Gadabu, O. J., Kokaly, A. N., Goldberg, R., Ranusch, A., Damschroder, L. J., & Landis-Lewis, Z. (2022). Dashboards in health care settings: Protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Research Protocols, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/34894

    Kaiafa, G., Veneti, S., Polychronopoulos, G., Pilalas, D., Daios, S., Kanellos, I., Didangelos, T., Pagoni, S., & Savopoulos, C. (2020). Is hba1c an ideal biomarker of well-controlled diabetes? Postgraduate Medical Journal, 97(1148), 380–383. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138756

    Liang, Z., Xu, M., Liu, G., Zhou, Y., & Howard, P. (2022). Patient-centered care and patient autonomy: Doctors’ views in Chinese hospitals. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00777-w

    NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

    Smits, M., Hopstaken, R., Terhaag, L., de Kort, G., & Giesen, P. (2022). Early experiences with quality-assured hba1c and professional glucose point-of-care testing in general practice: A cross-sectional observational study among patients, nurses and doctors. BMC Nursing, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00969-0

    Song, K., & Chambers, A. R. (2023). Diabetic foot care. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553110/

    Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119

    Zhao, N., Xu, J., Zhou, Q., Hu, J., Luo, W., Li, X., Ye, Y., Han, H., Dai, W., & Chen, Q. (2023). Screening behaviors for diabetic foot risk and their influencing factors among general practitioners: A cross-sectional study in Changsha, China. BMC Primary Care, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02027-3