IHP 430 Milestone One: Begin By Identifying An Organization ✓ Solved

IHP 430 Milestone One: Begin by identifying an organizatio

IHP 430 Milestone One: Begin by identifying an organizational problem within your workplace healthcare setting or a hypothetical healthcare organization. If you choose a problem in your workplace, utilize data from that organization; if hypothetical, you may use a public-domain database with instructor permission. This assignment must adhere to APA formatting and include peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources. Address the following prompts:

I. What is the organizational problem?

A. Provide a contextual basis for the problem and explain how it fails to meet quality or regulatory requirements.

B. Articulate organizational challenges posed by the problem (e.g., interdepartmental conflicts, communication failure, budgeting issues).

II. Evidence-Based Support

A. Provide data that supports the existence of the problem (public sources may be used).

B. Describe how this problem has been addressed in the past and what information management systems or patient care technologies have been used, using peer-reviewed literature.

C. Discuss relevant accreditation, safety, compliance, and quality standards, and explain how these standards promote a culture of safety within the department.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive Summary

This paper examines medication administration errors (MAEs) as an organizational problem in a hypothetical 300-bed community hospital. The discussion provides contextual background, explains how MAEs fail to meet quality and regulatory expectations, identifies organizational challenges, presents evidence supporting the problem’s existence, reviews past interventions including information management systems and patient care technologies, and analyzes relevant accreditation and safety standards that promote a culture of safety.

Contextual Basis of the Organizational Problem

Medication administration errors remain a leading source of preventable patient harm in acute care settings. In the hypothetical hospital, incident reports and voluntary safety reporting indicate a sustained rate of medication errors (e.g., wrong dose, wrong time, omitted dose) approximating 3–4 errors per 1,000 medication administrations over the past year, exceeding benchmark targets established by regional networks. Such error rates reflect systemic vulnerabilities in medication reconciliation, handoff communication, and medication administration workflows (Bates et al., 1995; World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). The problem fails to meet regulatory and quality requirements, including The Joint Commission’s National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) on medication reconciliation and safe medication practices, and CMS Conditions of Participation that mandate safe medication processes and documentation (The Joint Commission, 2023; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2021).

Organizational Challenges Posed by the Problem

MAEs create interdepartmental friction between nursing, pharmacy, and providers when root causes are ambiguous. Communication failures during handoffs and inconsistent reconciliation procedures increase cognitive load on nurses, particularly during shift changes and patient transfers (Westbrook et al., 2010). Budget constraints limit the hospital’s ability to invest in technologies such as bar-code medication administration (BCMA) and advanced clinical decision support (CDS). Staff turnover and varying levels of health IT literacy hinder consistent adoption of standardized protocols. Additionally, alert fatigue from poorly tuned electronic health records (EHRs) can blunt clinician responsiveness to critical warnings (Sittig & Singh, 2010).

Evidence Supporting Existence of the Problem

Seminal research estimated high rates of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients (Bates et al., 1995). Global assessments and WHO initiatives document medication safety as a major source of harm, estimating that medication-related harm affects millions annually and urging system-level interventions (WHO, 2017). Observational studies link interruptions and workflow design to increased MAEs (Westbrook et al., 2010). These external data sources mirror the local event reporting trends in the hypothetical hospital and provide a credible evidence base demonstrating that MAEs are a persistent, system-level issue that warrants intervention.

How the Problem Has Been Addressed Historically

Health organizations have used multiple approaches to reduce MAEs. Technological interventions include computerized physician order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support, BCMA, and integrated pharmacy automation. A randomized study showed BCMA implementation reduced administration errors significantly compared with conventional practice (Poon et al., 2010). CPOE combined with CDS reduces prescribing errors and helps standardize dosing; however, poor socio-technical alignment can introduce new hazards unless workflows and training are optimized (Sittig & Singh, 2010).

Process and quality improvement methods such as Lean and Six Sigma have been applied to streamline medication workflows, reduce handoff variability, and improve inventory control (DelliFraine, Langabeer, & Nembhard, 2010). Education and simulation-based training, standardized medication reconciliation procedures, and multidisciplinary medication safety committees further complement technological solutions. Nonetheless, literature stresses that multi-modal strategies—technology, process redesign, governance, and culture change—produce the most durable improvements (Institute of Medicine, 1999; AHRQ, 2020).

Relevant Accreditation, Safety, Compliance, and Quality Standards

The Joint Commission’s NPSGs emphasize accurate medication reconciliation at transitions of care, safe labeling and storage, and improving communication among caregivers (The Joint Commission, 2023). CMS Conditions of Participation require hospitals to demonstrate safe medication management and error reporting systems (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2021). AHRQ provides evidence-based tools and patient safety indicators to guide monitoring and benchmarking (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2020). ONC interoperability and health IT certification criteria support safe information exchange, reducing errors due to incomplete records (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology [ONC], 2015).

These standards promote a culture of safety by mandating continuous performance monitoring, standardized procedures, and leadership accountability. They encourage non-punitive incident reporting and use of data to drive improvement, aligning clinical, technical, and administrative stakeholders around common safety goals (The Joint Commission, 2023; Institute of Medicine, 1999).

Recommendations

To address MAEs in the hypothetical hospital, implement a bundled strategy: (1) deploy BCMA and CPOE with well-configured CDS to reduce administration and prescribing errors (Poon et al., 2010; Sittig & Singh, 2010); (2) standardize medication reconciliation processes at all transition points and use electronic verification to ensure completeness (The Joint Commission, 2023); (3) apply Lean process mapping to reduce handoff variability and interruptions during medication rounds (DelliFraine et al., 2010; Westbrook et al., 2010); (4) invest in staff training and simulation to improve workflow adoption; and (5) align governance and reporting with Joint Commission and CMS requirements to sustain accountability (AHRQ, 2020; CMS, 2021). Continuous measurement using patient safety indicators and transparent reporting will foster iterative improvement and a stronger culture of safety.

Conclusion

Medication administration errors are a well-documented, system-level organizational problem that breaches quality and regulatory expectations. Evidence supports multi-modal solutions that integrate technology, process redesign, staff training, and compliance with accreditation standards. By aligning interventions with established safety frameworks and continuously monitoring outcomes, the hospital can materially reduce MAEs and enhance patient safety.

References

  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2020). Patient Safety Network. Retrieved from https://psnet.ahrq.gov/
  • Bates, D. W., Cullen, D. J., Laird, N., Petersen, L. A., Small, S. D., Servi, D., ... & Leape, L. L. (1995). Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. JAMA, 274(1), 29–34.
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2021). Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals. Retrieved from https://www.cms.gov/
  • DelliFraine, J. L., Langabeer, J. R., & Nembhard, I. M. (2010). Assessing the evidence of Six Sigma and Lean in the health care industry. Quality Management in Healthcare, 19(3), 211–225.
  • Institute of Medicine. (1999). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. (2015). Health IT Certification Program. Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/
  • Poon, E. G., Keohane, C. A., Yoon, C. S., Ditmore, M., Bane, A., Levtzion-Korach, O., ... & Gandhi, T. K. (2010). Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(18), 1698–1707.
  • Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010). A socio-technical approach to preventing, detecting, and mitigating EHR-related safety events. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(6), 635–643.
  • The Joint Commission. (2023). National Patient Safety Goals. Retrieved from https://www.jointcommission.org/
  • World Health Organization. (2017). Medication Without Harm: Global Patient Safety Challenge on Medication Safety. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/

Related Assignments