Change Proposal Summary Report Your Full Name

Change Proposal Summary Report Your Full Name (no credentials) Capella University MSN-FP6218 Leading the Future of Health Care

Identify an aspect of a local or regional health care system or program that should be a focus for change. Define each desirable outcome you wish to examine, including who will pay for care and factors limiting achievement of those outcomes. Use Table 1 in the appendix for a comparative analysis of the specific outcomes you wish to examine. Analyze outcomes in two non-U.S. health care systems that offer insight into your proposed change, choosing either systems at opposite ends of the desirable outcome spectrum or systems that produce positive outcomes through innovative approaches. Compare the outcomes of each non-U.S. system with each other and with current outcomes in your local or regional health care system. Explain why specific changes will lead to improved outcomes and determine both the financial and health implications associated with these changes, addressing implications of implementing or not implementing the proposed change. Summarize your analysis and provide your rationale for the change proposal.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The continuous evolution of healthcare necessitates ongoing assessment and reform to ensure optimal outcomes for diverse populations. This paper explores a proposed change initiative aimed at enhancing chronic disease management within the regional healthcare system, focusing on reducing hospital readmissions for patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). By analyzing comparative outcomes in two non-U.S. health systems— the United Kingdom and Japan— and juxtaposing these findings with current U.S. outcomes, the paper elucidates strategies to improve care quality, control costs, and enhance patient satisfaction.

Proposed Change and Desired Outcomes

The primary aspect of the healthcare system targeted for change is the management of CHF patients, specifically reducing readmission rates within 30 days of hospital discharge. The desired outcomes include a decrease in readmission rates, improved patient quality of life, enhanced patient adherence to treatment plans, and reduced healthcare costs associated with avoidable hospitalizations. Funding for care will rely on a combination of insurance reimbursements, government programs, and out-of-pocket payments. Factors limiting achievement of these outcomes encompass limited patient education, inadequate follow-up care, and fragmented care coordination.

Health Care System Comparative Analysis

In this analysis, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) and Japan’s universal healthcare system serve as contrasting models (Smith & Lee, 2019; Tanaka et al., 2020). In the UK, integrated care pathways and emphasis on primary care management contribute to lower readmission rates for CHF patients compared to the U.S. (Morrison, 2021). Conversely, Japan’s focus on community-based care and technology-driven interventions result in a notably lower overall readmission rate despite similar demographic burdens (Kobayashi et al., 2018).

When comparing these systems, the UK’s approach utilizes centralized guidelines and multidisciplinary teams, fostering comprehensive outpatient management to prevent hospitalizations (Baker et al., 2020). Unlike the UK, Japan employs advanced remote monitoring and community nurse programs, enabling early detection of decompensation (Tanaka et al., 2020). Both systems outperform the U.S. in reducing readmissions, illustrating the benefits of integrated, proactive care models.

Rationale for Proposed Change

Implementing structured care coordination and post-discharge follow-up, as exemplified by the UK’s NHS strategies, can significantly reduce readmissions (Morrison, 2021). These approaches address key factors such as patient education, medication adherence, and timely outpatient visits, which are often neglected in the current U.S. model (Hoffman et al., 2019). Furthermore, leveraging Japan’s remote monitoring technologies can facilitate early intervention, decreasing the necessity for rehospitalization and improving overall patient outcomes.

Financial and Health Implications

The proposed changes entail initial investments in care coordination teams, patient education programs, and telehealth platforms. However, these costs are offset by reductions in costly hospital readmissions, which account for a significant portion of emergency care expenses (Gordon et al., 2019). Improved outcomes, including increased survival rates and enhanced quality of life, justify the investment, aligning with health system goals of value-based care (Porter, 2010).

Not adopting these strategies risks escalating healthcare costs due to preventable readmissions, worsened patient health, and decreased patient satisfaction—potentially resulting in higher long-term expenditures and poorer health equity (Coleman et al., 2017). Without change, the current system’s fragmentation and reactive approach will continue to impede achieving optimal outcomes.

Conclusion

This analysis underscores the importance of integrating innovative care models such as those employed in the UK and Japan to address the challenge of CHF management. By adopting multidisciplinary, technology-enhanced approaches and emphasizing outpatient care, the local healthcare system can realize significant improvements in patient outcomes and cost-efficiency. The rationale for change is reinforced by evidence showing superior outcomes in comparable international systems, highlighting the pathway for policy and practice transformation towards a sustainable, patient-centered future.

References

• Baker, R., Smith, L., & Jones, H. (2020). Integrated care pathways in the UK: Improving patient outcomes. Healthcare Management Review, 45(2), 123-134.
• Coleman, E. A., Hernandez, J., & Chiu, A. (2017). Care transitions and preventable hospital readmissions. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(3), 345-347.
• Gordon, J., Darby, C., & Pugh, T. (2019). Cost savings from reduced readmissions through telehealth interventions. American Journal of Managed Care, 25(5), e161-e166.
• Hoffman, G. J., Noh, E., & Thompson, D. (2019). Patient education and adherence in chronic disease management. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(4), 683-688.
• Kobayashi, T., Saito, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2018). Community care and health outcomes in Japan. International Journal of Healthcare, 4(2), 234-245.
• Morrison, P. J. (2021). Reducing hospital readmissions: Lessons from the UK NHS. British Medical Journal, 372, m4136.
• Porter, M. E. (2010). What is value in health care? New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477-2481.
• Smith, A., & Lee, K. (2019). Comparative health system analysis: The UK and U.S. models. Health Policy, 123(6), 523-530.
• Tanaka, K., Suzuki, A., & Yamada, H. (2020). Technology-enabled community care in Japan: A model for chronic disease management. Japan Journal of Public Health, 67(3), 150-160.