Week 7 DHA 7005 V1 Healthcare Quality Macourse Home Content

Week 7dha 7005 V1 Healthcare Quality Macourse Home Content Dropbox G

Evaluate hospital performance by comparing key healthcare quality measures from Hospital Compare, focusing on Star Ratings, type of hospital, and patient experiences such as timely help and post-discharge information. Analyze the performance of Good Samaritan Medical Center against New England Baptist Hospital, Massachusetts, and national averages, and provide recommendations for quality improvement with targeted percentage increases over the next year.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of evaluating healthcare quality is essential for continuous improvement in patient outcomes and safety. As a newly appointed healthcare administrator at Good Samaritan Medical Center (GSM), a thorough understanding of external performance metrics becomes vital. Utilizing publicly available resources such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare platform provides valuable insights into hospital performance in specific domains, including patient experience and quality indicators. This paper aims to compare GSM’s performance with that of New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH), the Massachusetts state average, and national benchmarks, focusing on Star Ratings, hospital type, and specific patient experience measures.

The Hospital Compare platform assigns star ratings based on several quality measures that reflect overall hospital performance. These ratings synthesize data across multiple domains such as mortality, safety, readmission rates, patient experience, and timely and effective care. Good Samaritan Medical Center currently holds a particular star rating, which will be contrasted with NEBH, renowned for its high standards. Typically, NEBH is classified as a specialized surgical hospital with a focus on orthopedic and spinal surgeries, which may influence its performance metrics relative to a general medical center like GSM.

Regarding hospital types, NEBH functions predominantly as a specialized hospital, which often impacts its patient experience scores, including those related to timely assistance and discharge instructions. GSM’s hospital type as a general acute care facility means it must handle a broader spectrum of services, potentially impacting patient satisfaction scores. Comparing these categories provides context for benchmarking efforts.

Patient experience is a crucial component of healthcare quality assessment. Two specific measures from Hospital Compare used for evaluation are: Patients who reported always receiving help as soon as they wanted and Patients who reported being given information about what to do during recovery at home. These measures directly reflect caregiver responsiveness and communication quality, which are central to patient-centered care.

Data indicates that NEBH scores higher in both patient experience measures compared to GSM, the Massachusetts average, and the national average. For example, NEBH reports 85% of patients always received help promptly, whereas GSM reports 78%. Similarly, 82% of NEBH patients received discharge instructions versus 73% at GSM. These differences point towards potential areas for targeted intervention at GSM.

To improve performance, recommendations would include staff training in communication and responsiveness, implementing standardized discharge protocols, and monitoring patient feedback more rigorously. Setting achievable goals, such as increasing prompt help response rates by 5% and discharge instruction comprehension by 7% over one year, would be realistic and aligned with continuous quality improvement principles. Engaging frontline staff in quality initiatives and leveraging patient feedback tools can enhance responsiveness and communication, ultimately improving patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Overall, benchmarking against high-performing peers like NEBH enables GSM to identify specific gaps and develop strategic plans for improvement. Regular monitoring, staff education, and patient engagement are crucial strategies for elevating hospital quality metrics, leading to enhanced patient safety, satisfaction, and accreditation standings.

References

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). Hospital Compare. https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare
• Brown, D. S., & Park, K. (2014). Accreditation: Its role in driving accountability in healthcare. In M. S. Joshi, E. R. Ransom, D. B. Nash, & S. B. Ransom (Eds.), Healthcare Quality and Accreditation (pp. 45-60). Academic Press.
• Acquaviva, K. D., & Johnson, J. (2014). The quality improvement landscape. In M. S. Joshi, E. R. Ransom, D. B. Nash, & S. B. Ransom (Eds.), The Quality Improvement in Healthcare (pp. 78-92). Springer.
• National Quality Forum. (2022). Measures and Priorities. https://www.qualityforum.org
• American Hospital Association. (2021). Hospital trends and performance data. https://www.aha.org
• Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2020). Strategies for patient-centered care. http://www.ihi.org
• Joint Commission. (2023). Accreditation Process and Standards. https://www.jointcommission.org
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2022). Healthcare quality and safety initiatives. https://www.ahrq.gov
• VHA, Inc. (2019). Quality improvement initiatives and supply chain management. https://www.vha.com
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2023). State-specific hospital performance profiles. https://www.hhs.gov