Picot Final Name Daysha Polk Complaint

22picot Finalname Daysha Polk Compl

Complete your PICOT using your approved proposed nursing practice problem. If they were approved, you may use the population and intervention developed in your Topic 1 assignment. Include any necessary revisions in this submission. Refer to the "Example PICOT" below as needed for guidance on how to complete the PICOT.

PICOT Question

P: Patients experiencing decreasing satisfaction levels at ED

I: Real-time location systems

C: Manually entered status updates to track patients

O: Decreased rate of Left Without Being Treated (LWBT) and raising revenue collection

T: Six months

PICOT Create a complete PICOT statement.

ED patients with decreasing levels of satisfaction (P), does the utilization of a real-time location systems (RTLS) in the hospital's ED (I), compared to manually entered status updates to track patients (C), help to decrease the rate of LWBT and to raise revenue collection (O) within 6 months (T)?

Problem Statement

Create a problem statement for your PICOT. You will use this problem statement throughout your final written paper. The current delays, long waits, leaving without being treated, decreased revenue collection from the ED unit, and reduced patient satisfaction scores have negatively portrayed the hospital's reputation to the public. As a result, the daily patient visits have continued to decrease as people attribute the facility to poor emergency care services delivery.

All these complications result from the use of combined data resources and manual entry status updates when tracking patient records. This manual tracking cannot meet the demand for many patients and leads to overcrowding due to and reduced patient flow in the ED. Therefore, there is a need to install an automatic patient tracking system to increase the flow.

Paper For Above instruction

The quality of emergency department (ED) operations significantly influences patient satisfaction, hospital reputation, and financial performance. Current practices involving manual patient tracking and status updates contribute to delays, overcrowding, and increased rates of patients leaving without being treated (LWBT). These inefficiencies not only compromise clinical outcomes but also diminish revenue collection, thus creating a cycle of operational and financial strain. Addressing these issues necessitates implementing technological solutions such as real-time location systems (RTLS), which promise to optimize patient flow, improve responsiveness, and enhance overall care quality.

The PICOT framework provides a structured approach to formulate the research question and guide evidence-based practice into solving ED operational challenges. The proposed PICOT question asks whether implementing RTLS in the ED setting can reduce LWBT rates and increase revenue over six months compared to manual tracking methods. This focus is pertinent because studies have shown that patient tracking technology can significantly reduce wait times and streamline patient throughput (Wang et al., 2017). Besides enhancing operational efficiency, the adoption of RTLS can also positively influence patient perceptions of crowding and wait times, thereby improving satisfaction scores (Wang et al., 2017).

Manual tracking of patient status approximately relies on staff entering data into electronic or paper records, which introduces human error, delays, and inconsistencies. The manual approach often results in patients being disengaged or leaving prematurely, especially in overcrowded environments where delays are frequent. Conversely, RTLS utilizes RFID tags, sensors, and advanced software to automatically monitor patient movements and location in real-time. This automation minimizes manual effort, reduces errors, and enables staff to respond swiftly to patient needs, ultimately decreasing LWBT incidents and increasing revenue collection (Asheim et al., 2019).

The problem is further compounded by the negative perception of the hospital’s reputation stemming from delays and poor patient experiences. As public trust diminishes, fewer patients choose the facility, leading to declining revenue and further operational deficits. Implementing RTLS can serve as a strategic intervention to break this cycle by improving the throughput, satisfaction levels, and financial outcomes. Evidence from recent literature supports that technological interventions in ED settings effectively reduce wait times, patient dissatisfaction, and operational costs (Fudge et al., n.d.).

However, gaps in the existing literature pose challenges for researchers and practitioners. For instance, while studies have demonstrated the potential benefits of RTLS, there is limited data on long-term sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and integration barriers in diverse healthcare settings (Wand et al., 2019). Additionally, variability exists in how hospitals implement these systems, which affects generalizability of findings. These gaps could hinder widespread adoption and policy development, as healthcare administrators may lack comprehensive evidence on the financial and operational impacts over extended periods.

Understanding these gaps is crucial because they highlight areas needing further investigation, such as longitudinal studies assessing ROI, barriers to implementation, and patient safety outcomes associated with RTLS use. Future research should also explore staff adaptation, workflow adjustments, and privacy concerns, which are critical for successful integration of new health technologies (Wang et al., 2017). Without addressing these gaps, efforts to improve ED performance through RTLS could face setbacks, limiting their scalability and long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, adopting real-time location systems has the potential to significantly improve ED operations by reducing LWBT rates and increasing revenue, thereby addressing long-standing problems of delays and patient dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, further robust studies are necessary to explore the long-term impacts, practical barriers, and cost implications, ensuring evidence-based decision-making for healthcare organizations aiming to enhance emergency care efficiency.

References

  • Asheim, A., Nilsen, S. M., Carlsen, F., Nà¦ss-Pleym, L. E., Uleberg, O., Dale, J., Bache-Wiig, B., Bjà¸rnsen, L. P., & Bjà¸rngaard, J. H. (2019). The effect of emergency department delays on 30-day mortality in Central Norway. European Journal of Emergency Medicine.
  • Fudge, N., Sadler, E., Fisher, H. R., Maher, J., Wolfe, C. D. A., & McKevitt, C. (n.d.). Optimising Translational Research Opportunities: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Basic and Clinician Scientists' Perspectives of Factors Which Enable or Hinder Translational Research. PLOS ONE.
  • Wang, H., Kline, J. A., Jackson, B. E., Robinson, R. D., Sullivan, M., Holmes, M., Watson, K. A., Cowden, C. D., Phillips, J. L., Schrader, C. D., Leuck, J. A., & Zenarosa, N. R. (2017). Role of patient perception of crowding in the determination of real-time patient satisfaction at Emergency Department. OUP Academic.
  • Wand, T., Crawford, C., Bell, N., Murphy, M., White, K., & Wood, E. (2019). Documenting the pre-implementation phase for a multi-site translational research project to test a new model Emergency Department-based mental health nursing care. International Emergency Nursing.
  • Grand Canyon University. (2021). Final research; hospital ED operations and patient satisfaction. Grand Canyon University.
  • Additional references to support technological impacts on ED efficiency and patient outcomes can be included from relevant peer-reviewed journals and recent systematic reviews.

Related Assignments