Nursing Research Utilization Project Proposal Monitoring

nursing Research Utilization Project Proposal Monitoringthe Deliver

Discharged patients should be released to community agencies that provide in-home assistive services. The transition plan must consider the patient's home environment as well as the risks for injury and find ways of mitigating them as soon as possible. Service providers should take advantage of family conferences to advise the patients’ family of how to care for the patient after they have been discharged from the hospital. Hence, there is a need for post-discharge follow-up especially for high-risk patients, to deter readmission rates (Potera, 2009).

This paper aims to discuss methods of monitoring solution implementation; evaluate the solution; and lastly, tackle outcome measures and data collection evaluation.

Paper For Above instruction

Monitoring

Monitoring involves the scheduled collection and analysis of data to track the progress of the implemented solution and ensure compliance with health standards regarding patient discharge (Popejoy et al., 2015). It is critical in establishing patterns, managing issues, and implementing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare, particularly in improving patient-centered care and discharge planning (Potera, 2009). The Stetler Model guides the monitoring process, encompassing preparation, validation, decision-making, application, and evaluation steps (Stetler, 2001).

During the preparation phase, the purpose, evidence sources, and healthcare context are identified. Validation ensures the monitoring process's reliability and appropriateness, while decision-making guides subsequent actions based on data. Application involves applying findings to improve discharge processes, culminating in evaluation to assess overall effectiveness.

The identified solution emphasizes the interdisciplinary team (IDT) ensuring individualized post-hospitalization care to prevent readmission. Monitoring aims to verify that this goal is achieved through cohesive communication and patient engagement, leading to better health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.

Evaluation

The evaluation process includes stakeholder involvement in designing and implementing the program, clarifying scope, and developing targeted questions and indicators to measure success (Black, 2013). Relevant indicators include patient understanding of discharge instructions, the effectiveness of communication among providers, the number of community agencies involved, and assessment of home environment risks. Data collection methods may be qualitative (e.g., interviews, focus groups) or quantitative (e.g., surveys, routine health data), depending on the aspect being measured.

Collected data should be analyzed to assess improvements in discharge processes, patient safety, and readmission rates. Findings must then be communicated to stakeholders with recommendations for ongoing adjustments, ensuring continuous quality improvement.

Outcome Measures

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide insights into the impact of healthcare services on patient health and well-being, offering a patient-centered perspective on care quality (Black, 2013). The outcome measures for this project include:

  • The patient's understanding of discharge instructions from admission onward.
  • The effectiveness of a unified policy-driven communication framework among healthcare providers.
  • The number and quality of community agencies providing in-home services.
  • The influence of the home environment on injury risk, along with strategies for mitigation.
  • The extent of family engagement in post-discharge care planning.
  • The rate of post-discharge follow-up within 24 hours for high-risk patients.
  • The reduction in hospital readmissions attributable to improved discharge planning and follow-up.

These measures collectively evaluate whether the process changes lead to safer, more effective, patient-centered discharge experiences.

Data Collection and Evaluation

Data collection integrates both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Quantitative methods, such as surveys and routine service data, provide measurable evidence of outcomes, while qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, offer in-depth insights into patient experiences (Petitti et al., 2000). Tools like electronic surveys, phone interviews, and patient journals can gather valuable feedback, enabling comprehensive assessment.

Analysis involves statistical evaluation of collected data to identify trends, disparities, and areas needing improvement. The findings are then summarized and shared with stakeholders to inform future practice adjustments. Continuous monitoring and evaluation ensure the discharge process remains patient-centered, safe, and effective, with modifications based on evidence-driven insights.

Implementation Plan

The implementation involves coordinated collaboration among healthcare providers through stakeholder engagement, brainstorming, and strategic planning. The first step entails assembling an interdisciplinary team (IDT) comprising physicians, nurses, social workers, and other relevant professionals. This team will be briefed on the goal: delivering individualized, patient-centered discharge care.

The team will then develop a comprehensive discharge plan in collaboration with patients and their families, incorporating assessments of home environments, potential injury risks, and support systems. Brainstorming sessions foster idea exchange and facilitate shared decision-making, aligning team members on best practices.

The plan uses the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to motivate adherence to the discharge protocols. TRA suggests that behavioral intentions are influenced by attitudes and subjective norms (Hill, 1977). By fostering positive attitudes and reinforced norms around patient safety and personalized care, healthcare providers are more likely to implement the planned interventions effectively.

Resources necessary for implementation include staffing, access to electronic health records, communication tools, and meeting spaces. Securing executive support is crucial; leadership endorsement ensures allocation of resources and facilitates integration into existing workflows (Ur Rehman Khan et al., 2014).

The plan involves training staff on new protocols, establishing communication channels, and scheduling regular interdisciplinary meetings. Progress is tracked through predefined metrics, with feedback loops enabling continuous refinement of discharge procedures.

Outcome Measures and Feasibility

The primary outcome metric is achieving an 85% rate of patients with a comprehensive, patient-centered discharge plan post-hospitalization. A follow-up phone call within 24 hours for high-risk patients is a key process indicator to verify that care plans are being enacted and to promptly address any issues (Black, 2013). A positive trend in reduced readmission rates and improved patient satisfaction further demonstrates feasibility.

Feasibility hinges on stakeholder buy-in, resource availability, and leadership support. Engaging staff early, providing necessary training, and establishing clear communication pathways enhance the likelihood of success. The initiative’s alignment with institutional goals of reducing hospital readmissions and improving transitional care reinforces its practicality and sustainability.

In summary, involving stakeholders through structured planning, applying behavioral theories like TRA, and utilizing robust evaluation methods establish a feasible framework to enhance discharge planning and reduce readmission rates effectively.

References

  • Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.
  • Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. J. (2011). The values and value of patient-centered care. Annals of Family Medicine, 9(2), 100-103.
  • Hill, R. (1977). Contemporary Sociology, 6(2), 278-285.
  • Nunn, L., & McGuire, B. (2010). The importance of a good business plan. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(2), 95-105.
  • Petitti, D. B., Contreras, R., Ziel, F. H., Dudl, J., Domurat, E. S., & Hyatt, J. A. (2000). Evaluation of the effect of performance monitoring and feedback on care process, utilization, and outcome. Diabetes Care, 23(2), 192-198. doi:10.2337/diacare.23.2.192
  • Popejoy, L. L., Jaddoo, J., Sherman, J., Howk, C., Nguyen, R., & Parker, J. C. (2015). Monitoring resource utilization in a healthcare coordination program. Professional Case Management, 20(6), 269-278. doi:10.1097/NCM.0000000000000110
  • Potera, C. (2009). Lowering hospital readmissions and costs. American Journal of Nursing, 109(4), 20-26.
  • Stetler, C. B. (2001). Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice. Nursing Outlook, 49(6), 272-278. doi:10.1067/mno.2001.118135
  • Ur Rehman Khan, S., Sang Long, C., & Muhammad Javed Iqbal, S. (2014). Top management support, a potential moderator between project leadership and project success: A theoretical framework. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 11(8), 877-885. doi:10.19026/rjaset.8.1109

Related Assignments