Student Name
Capella University
NURS-FPX 6016 Quality Improvement of Interprofessional Care
Prof. Name
Date
Quality Improvement Initiative Evaluation
Quality Improvement (QI) Initiative evaluation in a medical setting is essential to ensuring that patient safety, care standards, and operational efficiency are continually set (Backhouse & Ogunlayi, 2020). This paper focuses on the critical analysis of an existing QI, aiming to determine its effectiveness based on recognized benchmarks and outcome measures. The goal is to evaluate whether the initiative has improvements in patient safety, standard of care, and cost efficiency while also identifying areas for further enhancement. This analysis will be particularly relevant to nurses and other health professionals who play a pivotal role in delivering high-quality care and need to develop their skills in reviewing and communicating performance reports related to quality initiatives.
Case Scenario
An adverse event involving a medication error at Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH)) was analyzed. The incident centered on Edward (47 years old), a cancer patient who received an incorrect dosage of morphine due to a nurse Alissa’s error, exacerbated by understaffing and heavy workload. This mistake led to severe respiratory depression, requiring immediate intervention and transfer to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The incident highlighted critical issues such as the need for medication double-checking protocols, better communication, adequate staffing levels, and robust patient safety measures. The adverse event had significant implications for Edward, his family, and the healthcare providers involved, emphasizing the necessity for ongoing quality improvement efforts to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Current Quality Improvement Initiative in Healthcare Setting
The QI initiative at NMH was implemented to address medication administration errors, mainly focusing on reducing the incidence of incorrect drug dosages. This initiative involved the introduction of several strategies, including the establishment of thorough medication guidelines, the implementation of electronic Medication Administration Records (eMARs) and Bar-coded Medication Administration (BCMA) systems, and enhanced training programs for nurses on medication safety. A critical adverse event prompted the implementation of the QI initiative due to the incorrect dosage of morphine to Edward.
This incident highlighted significant issues related to understaffing, nurse workload, and failure in medication administration protocols (Hawkins & Morse, 2022). The severe consequences of this error underscored the urgent need for measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. This incident also highlighted broader systematic issues within the hospital, such as the need for improved communication and adherence to safety protocols (Puri & Tadi, 2023).
NURS FPX 6016 Assessment 2 Quality Improvement Initiative Evaluation
Despite the implementation of the QI initiative, several problems and challenges arose. For example, the initiative needed to fully address the underlying issue of understaffing and the high workload of nursing staff, as nurse Alisa’s error was partly due to being overburdened. Secondly, while training programs were introduced, ensuring consistent adherence to medication safety protocols remained a challenge. Nurses like Alisa needed more comprehensive training and support to manage stress and workload effectively. Further, the implementation of eMARs and BCMA systems faced integration challenges.
Ensuring that all staff were adequately trained and comfortable using technologies was essential, but there needed to be more to achieve this goal. Moreover, the initiative highlighted the need for better communication and coordination among health providers. The failure to double-check medication dosages and communicate effectively about patient care were critical issues that needed more robust solutions (Tamminga et al., 2023).
Identified Knowledge Gaps and Uncertainties
To enhance the QI initiative, NMH must address several knowledge gaps and unanswered questions. These include the long-term effectiveness of the training programs, sustainability of eMARs and BCMA systems, the impact of staffing levels, patient and family perspectives on initiative, and interprofessional collaboration. Further information should be collected and analyzed. For instance, longitudinal data on medication errors before and after the implementation of the QI initiative provides a clearer view of the impact (Aredo et al., 2023). Regular feedback from nursing staff and other medical personnel will help identify ongoing issues and areas for improvement.
Tracking patient outcomes and satisfaction post-implementation can help measure the effectiveness of the QI initiative (Wong et al., 2020). The development of advanced, scenario-based training programs for nurses to handle stress and ensure protocol adherence would be beneficial. Lastly, continuous technological upgrades and support are assured. Addressing these areas will help improve patient safety and care quality.
Evaluation of Success of Quality Improvement Initiative
The success of the QI initiative at NMH can be evaluated through several recognized benchmarks and outcome measures. It includes the National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs), which emphasize guidelines like labeling and accurate communication of medication information (TJC, 2021). It includes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which provides benchmarks that talk about the over, under, and misuse of the treatment plan (AHRQ, 2020). Moreover, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides quality measures related to safety and quality, such as achieving the zero preventable harm goal (CMS, 2023). The following are the successful aspects of these established benchmarks and outcome measures of the QI initiative at NHM.
Most Successful Aspect of Initiative
The establishment of guidelines like the five rights of medication administration for nursing staff under the standard guideline initiative has shown a successful outcome with reduced medication errors through the checklist of rights of medication. Before the implementation of standard guidelines, the hospital’s compliance with guidelines was as low as 15%, but after implementation, it was 65%. It aligns with NPSG guidelines to label and accurately communicate the medication information through this medication-proper checklist (TJC, 2021). It improved patient safety and enhanced staff performance. Further, the implementation of eMAR and BCMA systems meets CMS quality measures by reducing medication errors and improving patient safety.
The adverse event rates have been reduced from 40% to 18% post-implementation. It aligns with CMS’s goal of achieving zero preventable harm, which NMH aims to accomplish through technology integration (CMS, 2023). It also helped save costs associated with adverse events and build a hospital’s (NMH) reputation. Moreover, the training for staff members, especially nurses, has significantly improved compliance with protocols after Edward’s incident. The training session allowed us to establish guidelines and their importance and learn about technology use practically, directly aligning with AHRQ’s benchmark and contributing to adverse drug events (AHRQ, 2020).
The staff satisfaction score regarding new policies has shown notable improvement from a satisfaction rate of 35% to 60%. There is significant acceptance of new policies and an effort to achieve outcome measures. The impact of the QI initiatives can enhance patient safety and satisfaction significantly. However, staffing levels and burnout reasons still need to be addressed, and staff satisfaction regarding workload contributes to medication errors (Hawkins & Morse, 2022).
Assumptions
The analysis of medication administration and reconciliation is based on several assumptions. By recognizing these benchmarks and outcome measures, NHM can find areas for Improvement. For example, all medication errors and adverse events are accurately reported and recorded (Yang & Liu, 2021). The QI initiative is consistently implemented across all relevant departments and staff members. All nursing staff and healthcare providers receive adequate training and support in using new technologies and following updated protocols. Moreover, the necessary resources, including staffing, technology, and funding, are available to support the QI initiative (Goodrich et al., 2020).
Inter-Professional Perspectives
Integrating interprofessional perspectives into the QI initiative at NMH involves evaluating inputs from nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and administrative staff about the initiative’s functionality. Nurses provided frontline insights into medication administration and the challenges faced, emphasizing the importance of thorough medication guidelines and effective training programs. They mentioned the stress management initiative to address the workload challenges (Brugman et al., 2022). Further, the doctors highlighted the need for accurate and timely medication orders, supporting the implementation of eMARs and BCMA systems (Deilkås et al., 2022).
Pharmacists contribute with their knowledge and expertise in medication management, ensuring the accuracy and safety of prescriptions. Moreover, administrative staff facilitated the integration of these technologies and training programs, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards (Akmal et al., 2022). The detailed conversation with the abovementioned team members has provided valuable insights into the implementation of the QI initiative at NMH. For instance, a conversation with nurse Alisa and a few others emphasized staffing levels in the hospital to manage the workload better.
They also mentioned addressing the psychological health of the staff members through training on stress management techniques or flexible working hours with adequate in-between breaks (Nwobodo et al., 2023). Similarly, doctors mentioned there is a need for better communication; with technology integration, the goal is somewhat easier to achieve, but verbal communication to double-check prescribed and provided medication should be established. A verbal confirmation with the doctor to confirm the dose and with the patient for transparent communication (Koyama et al., 2020). The pharmacists mentioned incorporating computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems for prescription accuracy purposes. It will help in minimizing manual errors (Dhamanti et al., 2021).
Areas of Uncertainty
Further information is required on how changes in staffing levels directly impact medication errors and patient outcomes. Understanding how patients and their families perceive the safety and quality of care post-implementation could offer valuable perspectives. Evaluating the extent and effectiveness of interprofessional collaboration can highlight areas for improvement (Francis et al., 2021). Addressing these gaps would offer a more thorough understanding of the QI initiative’s functionality and outcomes, ensuring continuous improvement in patient safety and care quality.
Additional Indicators and Protocols
The analysis has brought some additional factors to be considered for improving patient outcomes and safety at NMH, especially for cancer patients like Edward. Some of the recommended indicators and protocols are as follows, along with their pros and cons. The first recommendation is regular patient feedback surveys to measure satisfaction and identify areas for improvement (Wong et al., 2020). The pros include the provision of direct insights from patients, helping tailor care improvements, and the cons include the time-consuming aspect of surveys, which may only sometimes result in actionable feedback.
The second recommendation is a real-time error reporting system to identify and address errors promptly. The benefit is that it provides immediate error detection, allowing for quick corrective actions and fostering a culture of transparency for patients with health concerns like cancer. However, the drawback is that it requires robust IT infrastructure and staff training, along with the potential for underreporting due to fear of repercussions (Yang & Liu, 2021). Further, NHM should introduce advanced simulation-based training programs for handling high-stress medication administration scenarios.
It will improve staff preparedness and confidence by reducing errors in real-world settings (D’Angelo & Kchir, 2022). The cons are resource intensive and require regular updates to remain effective. The last recommendation is to conduct regular interprofessional case reviews of medication errors to identify root causes and preventive measures. The pros of this include the promotion of teamwork and continuous learning and the development of comprehensive preventive strategies for NMH. The cons are that it is time-consuming and that coordination among multiple departments might become challenging (Francis et al., 2021). These recommendations aim to enhance patient safety and standard of care. Balancing the pros and cons is essential for the successful implementation and sustainability of these improvements.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evaluation of NMH’s QI Initiative highlights significant improvements in patient safety and care quality through the implementation of thorough medication guidelines, eMARs, BCMA systems, and enhanced training programs for nurses. While successful in reducing medication errors and improving staff performance, challenges such as staffing levels and technological integration remain. Addressing these issues and incorporating additional indicators like patient feedback surveys and real-time error reporting systems will further strengthen the initiative, ensuring continuous enhancement of patient outcomes and care standards at NMH.
References
AHRQ. (2020, November). AHRQ quality indicator tools for data analytics. Www.ahrq.gov. https://www.ahrq.gov/data/qualityindicators/index.html#:~:text=These%20indicators%20reflect%20quality%20of
Akmal, A., Podgorodnichenko, N., Stokes, T., Foote, J., Greatbanks, R., & Gauld, R. (2022). What makes an effective quality improvement manager? a qualitative study in the New Zealand health system. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07433-w
Aredo, J. V., Ding, J. B., Lai, C. H., Trimble, R., Dulfano, R. A. B., Popat, R. A., & Shieh, L. (2023). Implementation and evaluation of an elective quality improvement curriculum for preclinical students: A prospective controlled study. PubMed Central, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04047-0
NURS FPX 6016 Assessment 2 Quality Improvement Initiative Evaluation
Backhouse, A., & Ogunlayi, F. (2020). Quality improvement into practice. BMJ, 368(1). https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m865
Brugman, I. M., Visser, A., Maaskant, J. M., Geerlings, S. E., & Eskes, A. M. (2022). The evaluation of an interprofessional QI program: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610087
CMS. (2023, September 6). CMS national quality strategy. Www.cms.gov. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/meaningful-measures-initiative/cms-quality-strategy
D’Angelo, A.-L., & Kchir, H. (2022). Error management training in medical simulation. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546709/
Deilkås, E. T., Rosta, J., Baathe, F., Søfteland, E., Lexberg, Å. S., Røise, O., & Rø, K. I. (2022). Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Primary Care, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01878-6
Dhamanti, I., Kurniawati, E., Zairina, E., Nurhaida, I., & Salsabila, S. (2021). Implementation of computerized physician order entry in primary care: A scoping review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 14(14), 3441–3451. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S344781
NURS FPX 6016 Assessment 2 Quality Improvement Initiative Evaluation
Francis, F., Johnsunderraj, S. E., Prabhakaran, H., Cayaban, A. R. R., & Al Zahli, R. A. (2021). Learning together matters: Interprofessional education to avoid medication errors. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 26(6), 573. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_363_20
Goodrich, D. E., Miake-Lye, I., Braganza, M. Z., Wawrin, N., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2020). General Resources for Implementation and Quality Improvement. Department of Veterans Affairs (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566227/
Hawkins, S. F., & Morse, J. M. (2022). Untenable expectations: nurses’ work in the context of medication administration, error, and the organization. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 9(2), 233339362211317. https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936221131779
Koyama, A. K., Maddox, C.-S. S., Li, L., Bucknall, T., & Westbrook, J. I. (2020). Effectiveness of double checking to reduce medication administration errors: A systematic Review. BMJ Quality & Safety, 29(7), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009552
Nwobodo, E. P., Strukcinskiene, B., Razbadauskas, A., Grigoliene, R., & Sobrinho, C. A. (2023). Stress management in healthcare organizations: The Nigerian context. Healthcare, 11(21), NA–NA. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11212815
Puri, I., & Tadi, P. (2023, November 13). Quality improvement. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556097/
NURS FPX 6016 Assessment 2 Quality Improvement Initiative Evaluation
Tamminga, S. J., Emal, L. M., Boschman, J. S., Levasseur, A., Thota, A., Ruotsalainen, J. H., Schelvis, R. M., Nieuwenhuijsen, K., & van der Molen, H. F. (2023). Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2023(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002892.pub6
TJC. (2021). National patient safety goals ®. In www.jointcommission.org. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/national-patient-safetygoals/-/media/b35ba0b4b9754c6dbafdb1f86e152e5c.ashx#:~:text=accurate%20patient%20medication%20information.&text=Goal%206%3A
Wong, E., Mavondo, F., & Fisher, J. (2020). Patient feedback to improve quality of patient-centred care in public hospitals: A systematic review of the evidence. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05383-3
Yang, Y., & Liu, H. (2021). The effect of patient safety culture on nurses’ near-miss reporting intention: the moderating role of perceived severity of near misses. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(1-2), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120979344