FP 6011 assessment 3

Question

Write a report on the application of population health improvement initiative outcomes to patient-centered care, based on information presented in an interactive multimedia scenario.

In this assessment, you have an opportunity to apply the tenets of evidence-based practice in both patient-centered care and population health improvement contexts. You will be challenged to think critically, evaluate what the evidence suggests is an appropriate approach to personalizing patient care, and determine what aspects of the approach could be applied to similar situations and patients.

By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:

Competency 1: Apply evidence-based practice to plan patient-centered care.
Evaluate the outcomes of a population health improvement initiative.
Develop an approach to personalizing patient care that incorporates lessons learned from a population health improvement initiative.

Competency 2: Apply evidence-based practice to design interventions to improve population health.

Propose a strategy for improving the outcomes of a population health improvement initiative, or for ensuring that all outcomes are being addressed, based on the best available evidence.
Competency 3: Evaluate outcomes of evidence-based interventions.

Propose a framework for evaluating the outcomes of an approach to personalizing patient care and determining what aspects of the approach could be applied to similar situations and patients.

Competency 4: Evaluate the value and relative weight of available evidence upon which to make a clinical decision.
Justify the value and relevance of evidence used to support an approach to personalizing patient care.

Competency 5: Synthesize evidence-based practice and academic research to communicate effective solutions.

Write clearly and logically, with correct grammar and mechanics.
Integrate relevant and credible sources of evidence to support assertions, correctly formatting citations and references using APA style.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: FP 6011 assessment 3

Preparation

In this assessment, you will base your Patient-Centered Care Report on the scenario presented in the Evidence-Based Health Evaluation and Application media piece. Some of the writing you completed and exported from the media piece should serve as pre-writing for this assessment and inform the final draft of your report. Even though the media piece presented only one type of care setting, you can extrapolate individualized care decisions, based on population health improvement initiative outcomes, to other settings.

Requirements

Note: The requirements outlined below correspond to the grading criteria in the scoring guide, so be sure to address each point. In addition, you may want to review the performance level descriptions for each criterion to see how your work will be assessed.

Writing, Supporting Evidence, and APA Style

Write clearly and logically, using correct grammar and mechanics.
Integrate relevant evidence from 3–5 current scholarly or professional sources to support your evaluation, recommendations, and plans.
Apply correct APA formatting to all in-text citations and references.
Attach a reference list to your report.

Report Content

Address the following points in a 4–6 page report:

Evaluate the expected outcomes of the population health improvement initiative that were, and were not, achieved.

Describe the outcomes that were achieved, their positive effects on the community’s health, and any variance across demographic groups.

Describe the outcomes that were not achieved, the extent to which they fell short of expectations, and any variance across demographic groups.

Identify the factors (for example: institutional, community, environmental, resources, communication) that may have contributed to any achievement shortfalls.

Propose a strategy for improving the outcomes of the population health improvement initiative, or ensuring that all outcomes are being addressed, based on the best available evidence.

Describe the corrective measures you would take to address the factors that may have contributed to achievement shortfalls.

Cite the evidence (from similar projects, research, or professional organization resources) that supports the corrective measures you are proposing.

Explain how the evidence illustrates the likelihood of improved outcomes if your proposed strategy is enacted

Develop an approach to personalizing patient care that incorporates lessons learned from the population health improvement initiative outcomes.

Explain how the outcomes and lessons learned informed the decisions you made in your approach for personalizing care for the patient with a health condition related to the population health concern addressed in the improvement initiative.

Ensure that your approach to personalizing care for the individual patient addresses the patient’s:
Individual health needs.

Economic and environmental realities.

Culture and family.

Incorporate the best available evidence (from both the population health improvement initiative and other relevant sources) to inform your approach and actions you intend to take.

Justify the value and relevance of evidence you used to support your approach to personalizing care for your patient.

Explain why your evidence is valuable and relevant to your patient’s case.

Explain why each piece of evidence is appropriate for both the health issue you are trying to correct and for the unique situation of your patient and their family.

Propose a framework for evaluating the outcomes of your approach to personalizing patient care.

Ensure that your framework includes measurable criteria that are relevant to your desired outcomes.

Explain why the criteria are appropriate and useful measures of success.

Identify the specific aspects of your approach that are most likely to be transferable to other individual cases.

Also Read:    FP 6011 assessment 2

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: FP 6011 assessment 3

Title: FP 6011 assessment 3

Patient-Centred Care

The increased implementation of population health improvement initiatives (PHIIs) is providing innovative solutions applicable to patient-centred care and evidence-based practice (EBP). The case study provided by Alicia Balewa presents evidence that can be used in patient based care to improve the health outcomes of the patient and further apply evidence in other PHIIs. Meeting the individual needs of patient care is crucial in the implementation of evidence and this paper focuses on the analysis of evidence from the PHII case study and its application in an individual case of Mr. Nowak at Uptown Wellness Clinic (UWC). Lessons from Safe Headspace PHII can be effectively implemented in patient-centred care for Mr. Nowak and hence portray the adoption of evidence-based practice in PHIIs and patient-centred care. Public Health Improvement Initiatives (PHII) Outcomes The outcomes of the PHII by Safe Headspace present various successful interventions as well as others that were not successful. The successful outcomes were mainly meditation and exercise while medication and therapy were not all successful. Primarily, the exercise intervention was successful in turning out 15% muscle control improvement, 61% memory improvement, and 22% mood improvement in 75 participants who followed through for 3 months (Vila Health, n.d.). Similarly, meditation for 10 to 15 m …

Homework: Quality Improvement Initiative Evaluation

The extremely complicated sector of health care has a fragmented approach to care providing. Quality can function as a shared paradigm in healthcare to meet the requirements of all groups. An organization can improve quality by adopting a process-based strategy. The effort to enhance healthcare standards now spans every country. The status of service provision today demands a quality revolution that puts the patient ahead of all other services (Aggarwal et al., 2019). For changes to be successfully incorporated and replicated in many settings, it is essential to understand the importance of perspective and the situational character of quality improvement initiatives. However, context continues to be poorly understood. To meet this challenge, generalizable knowledge must be gathered by first determining the context-related factors that are of utmost crucial to QI and will examine why these factors exist and how they can be managed to support healthcare improvement., promote sustainable development, and leveling initiatives (Coles et al., 2020).

The new definition of quality that includes patient satisfaction as the service’s outcome makes the need for quality improvement more urgent now. It is the patient’s right to receive better facilities. In contrast to the conventional view of quality control, which focused on fault detection, the modern perspective emphasizes defect restraint, constant process improvement, and a patient-centered outcome-driven approach. As a result, the fundamental presumptions underlying the current healthcare approach must be changed immediately. To promote quality, the government must take the initiative. Currently, the medical business and the world at large pay greater attention to quality than professions like nursing and dentistry (Aggarwal et al., 2019).

Each technique has benefits and drawbacks. Estimates from nurses provide substantial amounts of data quickly and at a cheap cost to labor. Hospital administration and strategy planners can improve the quality of care by reviewing nurses’ voluntary reports of negative incidents like prescription mistakes (Jember et al., 2018).

Current Health Care Quality Improvement Initiatives

The CAUTI initiative is a quality improvement initiative that aims to reduce the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). CAUTIs are a common complication associated with indwelling urinary catheters and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stays, and increased healthcare costs. Therefore, reducing the risk of CAUTIs is an important aspect of patient safety and quality improvement in healthcare settings (Atkins et al., 2020).

The CAUTI initiative involves a range of strategies aimed at reducing the use of indwelling urinary catheters and ensuring their appropriate use when they are necessary. These strategies include:

• Establishing criteria for appropriate catheter use: Healthcare organizations can establish clear criteria for the use of catheters, including the indications for their use, the type and size of the catheter to be used, and the duration of catheterization.
• Educating staff on appropriate catheter use and maintenance: Proper catheter insertion and maintenance techniques should be taught to all staff members involved in the care of patients with catheters. Staff members should also be trained on the importance of hand hygiene, aseptic technique, and sterile equipment to prevent infection.
• Monitoring catheter use and duration: Regular monitoring of catheter use and duration is essential to reduce the risk of CAUTIs. Catheters should be removed as soon as possible, typically within 48 hours, and their continued use should be re-evaluated regularly.
• Implementing catheter insertion and maintenance bundles: Healthcare organizations can use bundles of evidence-based practices for catheter insertion and maintenance to reduce the risk of infection.
• Providing feedback to staff: Regular feedback and performance monitoring can help to identify areas for improvement and promote adherence to best practices.
• Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration: Interdisciplinary collaboration among healthcare providers can facilitate communication and promote best practices in the prevention of CAUTIs.

Overall, the CAUTI initiative is an important quality improvement initiative in healthcare settings. By reducing the incidence of CAUTIs, healthcare organizations can improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and promote patient safety (Atkins et al., 2020).

Knowledge Gaps and Uncertainties

Despite the many advances in the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), there are still several knowledge gaps, unknowns, missing information, unanswered questions, and areas of uncertainty that require further research and investigation. Some of these gaps and uncertainties include:

• The optimal duration of catheterization: There is still no consensus on the ideal duration of catheterization, which can vary depending on the patient’s individual circumstances, the type of catheter used, and the presence of underlying comorbidities.
• The effectiveness of catheter bundles: While there is some evidence to support the use of catheter insertion and maintenance bundles in reducing the risk of CAUTIs, the optimal components of these bundles and their overall effectiveness require further investigation.
• The role of antimicrobial catheters: Antimicrobial-coated catheters are currently used in some healthcare settings to reduce the risk of CAUTIs, but their overall effectiveness and the potential for antimicrobial resistance require further study.
• The impact of CAUTI prevention on healthcare costs: While the prevention of CAUTIs is likely to reduce healthcare costs, there is a need for further research to better understand the cost-effectiveness of different CAUTI prevention strategies and their impact on overall healthcare expenditures.
• The role of patient and family education: Although patient and family education is recognized as an important component of CAUTI prevention, more research is needed to determine the most effective methods for educating patients and families on catheter care and the prevention of CAUTIs.

Addressing these knowledge gaps and uncertainties is essential for improving the effectiveness of the CAUTI initiative as a quality improvement initiative and reducing the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

Current Quality Improvement Initiative’s Success

The success of the CAUTI initiative can be evaluated using recognized national, state, or accreditation benchmarks and outcome measures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) have established several benchmarks and outcome measures that are commonly used to evaluate the effectiveness of CAUTI prevention efforts. These measures include:

• CAUTI rate: The CAUTI rate is a commonly used outcome measure for evaluating the effectiveness of the CAUTI initiative. The CAUTI rate is typically calculated as the number of CAUTIs per 1,000 catheter days. A lower CAUTI rate indicates a higher level of success in reducing the incidence of CAUTIs.
• Device utilization ratio (DUR): The DUR is a measure of the proportion of patients who have a urinary catheter in place. A lower DUR indicates a higher level of success in reducing the use of urinary catheters.
• Compliance with recommended practices: Compliance with recommended practices for catheter insertion and maintenance is an important benchmark for evaluating the success of the CAUTI initiative. Recommended practices may include criteria for catheter use, appropriate catheter insertion technique, and regular assessment of the need for continued catheterization.
• Education and training: Education and training of healthcare providers on CAUTI prevention measures is an important component of the CAUTI initiative. The success of the CAUTI initiative can be evaluated by measuring the extent to which education and training have been provided and the level of healthcare provider knowledge and adherence to recommended practices (Van Decker et al., 2021).

Several studies have shown that the implementation of the CAUTI initiative has led to significant reductions in CAUTI rates and improvements in compliance with recommended practices. For example, a study published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine found that the implementation of a CAUTI prevention bundle led to a 79% reduction in CAUTI rates and a 47% reduction in device utilization ratio (Soundaram et al., 2020). Another study published in the American Journal of Infection Control found that a multifaceted intervention aimed at reducing the use of urinary catheters led to a 50% reduction in the CAUTI rate and a 70% reduction in the device utilization ratio (Soundaram et al., 2020).

Assumptions

The analysis of the CAUTI initiative as a quality improvement initiative is based on several assumptions, including:

• The validity and reliability of the benchmarks and outcome measures used to evaluate the success of the CAUTI initiative: The analysis assumes that the benchmarks and outcome measures used to evaluate the success of the CAUTI initiative, such as the CAUTI rate, device utilization ratio, compliance with recommended practices, and education and training, are valid and reliable indicators of the effectiveness of the initiative. While these measures are widely used and accepted, there may be limitations in their accuracy or applicability in certain healthcare settings (Krocová & Prokešová, 2022).
• The availability and accuracy of data: The analysis assumes that there is accurate and comprehensive data available to evaluate the success of the CAUTI initiative. This includes data on the number of catheter-associated urinary tract infections, catheter utilization rates, compliance with recommended practices, and the provision of education and training. However, there may be limitations in the availability or accuracy of these data, which could affect the analysis.
• The effectiveness of the CAUTI prevention strategies: The analysis assumes that the CAUTI prevention strategies implemented in healthcare settings are effective in reducing the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. While there is evidence to support the effectiveness of many of these strategies, the effectiveness may vary depending on the specific healthcare setting, patient population, and other factors.
• The generalizability of findings: The analysis assumes that the findings of studies evaluating the effectiveness of the CAUTI initiative can be generalized to other healthcare settings and populations. However, the effectiveness of the initiative may vary depending on the specific context, and there may be limitations in the generalizability of the findings (Krocová & Prokešová, 2022).

Incorporate Interprofessional Perspectives 

Interprofessional collaboration is essential in the success of any healthcare quality improvement initiative, including the CAUTI initiative. Interprofessional teams, including nurses, physicians, infection preventionists, clinical pharmacists, and quality improvement specialists, can work together to improve the functionality and outcomes of the initiative.

Nurses play a critical role in the prevention of CAUTIs by ensuring appropriate catheter use, performing catheter care, and monitoring patients for signs and symptoms of infection. Nurses can collaborate with physicians and other members of the healthcare team to ensure that catheters are inserted only when necessary and removed as soon as possible to minimize the risk of infection. Nurses can also work with infection preventionists to monitor and report the incidence of CAUTIs and identify opportunities for improvement (Gregory et al., 2022).

Physicians also play a critical role in the prevention of CAUTIs by ensuring appropriate catheter use and promptly removing catheters when they are no longer needed. They can work with nurses and other members of the healthcare team to ensure that catheters are used only when necessary and are removed as soon as possible. They can also provide education to patients and families on the risks and benefits of catheter use and involve them in the decision-making process.

Infection preventionists can provide expertise in the development and implementation of evidence-based strategies to prevent CAUTIs. They can work with nurses and physicians to ensure that appropriate catheter use, insertion, and care practices are followed. They can also monitor and report the incidence of CAUTIs and identify opportunities for improvement.

Clinical pharmacists can provide expertise in the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents for the prevention and treatment of CAUTIs. They can work with physicians and infection preventionists to ensure that appropriate antimicrobial therapy is prescribed and monitored (Gregory et al., 2022).

Quality improvement specialists can provide expertise in the development and implementation of quality improvement initiatives to prevent CAUTIs. They can work with interprofessional teams to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the CAUTI initiative, identify opportunities for improvement, and implement changes to improve outcomes.

Recommendation of Quality Indicator by Using Quality Initiative

There are several additional indicators and protocols that can be implemented to improve and expand the outcomes of a quality initiative focused on CAUTI prevention. These recommendations include:

• Monitoring and reporting of catheter utilization rates: In addition to monitoring and reporting the incidence of CAUTIs, healthcare organizations can monitor and report catheter utilization rates. This can help identify opportunities to decrease unnecessary catheter use and improve patient outcomes. The pros of this recommendation include increased awareness of catheter use, identification of areas for improvement, and improved patient outcomes. The cons of this recommendation include increased documentation burden for staff and potential for inaccurate data collection.
• Use of urinary catheter reminders and stop orders: Reminders and stop orders can be used to prompt healthcare providers to reassess the need for urinary catheters at regular intervals. The pros of this recommendation include decreased catheter use, reduced risk of CAUTI, and improved patient outcomes. The cons of this recommendation include the potential for increased workload for staff and the need for regular review and updating of orders.
• Education and training for healthcare providers and patients: Education and training can be provided to healthcare providers and patients to increase awareness of the risks associated with urinary catheters and promote best practices for catheter use, insertion, and care. The pros of this recommendation include increased knowledge and awareness among healthcare providers and patients, decreased catheter use, and improved patient outcomes. The cons of this recommendation include the potential for increased workload for staff and the need for regular updating of educational materials.
• Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs: Antimicrobial stewardship programs can be implemented to promote the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents for the prevention and treatment of CAUTIs. The pros of this recommendation include decreased antimicrobial resistance, improved patient outcomes, and reduced healthcare costs. The cons of this recommendation include the potential for increased workload for staff and the need for regular monitoring and evaluation of antimicrobial use.
• Use of alternatives to indwelling urinary catheters: Alternatives to indwelling urinary catheters, such as intermittent catheterization or external condom catheters, can be used to decrease the risk of CAUTI in select patients. The pros of this recommendation include decreased catheter use, reduced risk of CAUTI, and improved patient outcomes. The cons of this recommendation include the potential for increased workload for staff and the need for regular monitoring of alternative methods.

Conclusion

There is fragmentation in the complex world of health care. In the area of quality improvement, an organization employs a method-based approach to address its operational difficulties. Given that the new definition of quality includes patient happiness as the service’s outcome, the importance of quality improvement is now more critical than ever. As a result, there is an urgent need for a shift of perspective on the conventional approach to providing healthcare. Reducing adverse events and ensuring patient safety are the goals of initiatives to enhance patient safety culture as well as nurses’ safety competency. A few methods that have been used to assess adverse events include nursing records, reporting systems, reviews of medical unbiased observation, nurses’ estimates, and patient interviews. Each technique has benefits and drawbacks. Estimates from nurses provide substantial amounts of data quickly and at a cheap cost to labor. Hospital administration and strategy planners can improve the quality of care by reviewing nurses’ voluntary reports of adverse events.

References

Aggarwal, A., Aeran, H., & Rathee, M. (2019). Quality management in healthcare: the pivotal desideratum. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research, 9(2), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2018.06.006

Atkins, L., Sallis, A., Chadborn, T., Shaw, K., Schneider, A., Hopkins, S., Bunten, A., Michie, S., & Lorencatto, F. (2020). Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators and strategic behavioral analysis of interventions. Implementation Science, 15(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01001-2

Coles, E., Anderson, J., Maxwell, M., Harris, F. M., Gray, N. M., Milner, G., & MacGillivray, S. (2020). The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: a realist review. Systematic Reviews, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01344-3

Gregory, M. E., MacEwan, S. R., Sova, L. N., Gaughan, A. A., & Scheck McAlearney, A. (2022). A qualitative examination of interprofessional teamwork for infection prevention: Development of a model and solutions. Medical Care Research and Review, 107755872211039.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587221103973

Jember, A., Hailu, M., Messele, A., Demeke, T., & Hassen, M. (2018). Proportion of medication error reporting and associated factors among nurses: A cross sectional study. BMC Nursing, 17(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0280-4

Krocová, J., & Prokešová, R. (2022). Aspects of prevention of urinary tract infections associated with urinary bladder catheterisation and their implementation in nursing practice. Healthcare, 10(1), 152.

https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010152

Soundaram, G. V., Sundaramurthy, R., Jeyashree, K., Ganesan, V., Arunagiri, R., & Charles, J. (2020). Impact of care bundle implementation on incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection: A comparative study in the intensive care units of a tertiary care teaching hospital in south India. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine: Peer-Reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 24(7), 544–550.

https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23473

Van Decker, S. G., Bosch, N., & Murphy, J. (2021). Catheter-associated urinary tract infection reduction in critical care units: A bundled care model. BMJ Open Quality, 10(4), e001534. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001534