NRS-451 Executive Summary

NRS-451 Executive Summary

 

NRS-451 Executive Summary

Quality improvement is the framework employed to improve care systematically. It seeks to standardize processes and structures to lower variation, achieve predictable results, and improve outcomes for patients, healthcare systems, and organizations (Jones et al., 2019).Further, quality improvements provide better customer service, increased efficiency, excellent safety, and higher revenues (Jones et al., 2019).Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore a quality improvement initiative to be presented to the board for funding.

The Purpose of the Quality Improvement Initiative

Patient protection is an increasingly significant issue in care delivery. Medical errors cause most deaths in child care and medication. Most inpatients in the pediatrics department experience adverse events significant enough to elongate children’s hospitalization, thus causing considerable morbidity or leading to death. Inaccuracy can be caused by several factors, including lack of information about the patient or lack of knowledge about a therapy (Berdahl et al., 2019). In addition, decreased uptake of the evidence by the practitioner or patient can also cause errors of omission, which may endanger the safety and life of patients. Handheld electronic medical records are improving physician performance and patient care.

Moreover, research indicates that about half of practicing physicians own a handheld computer (Berdahl et al., 2019). Further, recent studies show that many physicians and clinicians use mobile computers in clinical practice, and some use them to access electronic medical records (Berdahl et al., 2019). It is perceived the benefits to improve productivity and accessibility of information and great potential to improve patient safety and quality of care.

The purpose of the proposed quality improvement initiative to adopt the handheld computers is to improve the quality of care by saving pediatrics and clinicians’ time in accessing, retrieving, and recording data, thus allowing them to focus more on patient care (Harper et al., 2019). Moreover, the pediatricians and the clinicians will provide pediatric and clinical decision support at the point of care, such as during electronic prescribing (Kenawy & Kett, 2019). In addition, the quality improvement will enhance access to knowledge databases at the point of care, thereby improving the translation of knowledge into practice (Vaughn et al., 2020). We posit that mobile access to electronic medical records is the only way forward for pediatrics complex care areas such as emergency cases in children care management. The quality improvement is also geared to enhance physicians’ ability, provide high-quality patient care, support team-based care, and promote child care coordination.

The Target Population or Audience               The targeted population and audience will include pediatricians, clinicians, lab technologists, pharmacists, patients, and their families. In addition, the EMR quality improvement will require an interphase with the central organization’s electronic health record system for easy and quick interoperability and sharer- the ability of information and data. The system configuration will connect the management and pediatricians, clinicians, and other stakeholders on a single platform.The Benefits of the Quality Improvement Initiative

With the quality improvement on the EMR, the pediatricians and clinicians will have to document encounters quickly and view complete patient summaries via built-in interfaces. Recording, retrieving, and altering or adjusting a patient’s clinical information and notes for longitudinal care will improve diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. In addition, the physicians and clinicians will have accelerated and on-demand access to patients’ documents and diagnostic images (Herbsman et al., 2020). Further, the integrated electronic prescription system will improve efficiency and eliminate illegible prescriptions and oral miscommunication.

Additionally, physicians and clinicians will access decision support that will expose potential safety problems and lead to better patient outcomes (Herbsman et al., 2020). Moreover, they will send appointment reminders and clinical alerts; improve patient care, medication compliance, and risk management more conveniently (Kiyarosta et al., 2020). Further, the clinician or the physician can monitor trends, analyze their data, check more meaningfully into patients’ needs, and make informed pediatrics decisions.

The Inter-Professional Collaboration to Implement the Quality Improvement Initiative               The different departments that will see the initiative’s implementation comprise the pediatric physicians, clinicians, nurses, lab-techs, the pharmacist technologists, the electronic health record specialists, the administration, and the management staff.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

COST	In-Office			Software as a Service (SaaS) Applications
	Upfront Cost	Annual Cost	5 Years TCO	Upfront Cost	Annual Cost	5 Years TCO
	10,000	2,000	15,000	8,000	5,000	20,000
Estimated Average Cost in $.

 

Cost Justification

The justification for the budget is based on the costs the quality improvement will incur in terms of hardware, i.e., Tablets, Laptops, printers, and scanners. In addition, the price will cover EMR software, i.e., the EMR applications for the SaaS EMR deployment.

The Premise upon Which the Quality Improvement Initiative Will Be Evaluated               The quality improvement initiative will be evaluated based on how much the patients (child) or their families’ care experience is improving or rated. In addition, the evaluation will be based on how much the new improvement on the EMR practice affects the delivery of patient-centered care. Further, the evaluation will be based on the acceptance and adherence to the quality improvement.

Conclusion

The primary goal of quality improvement is to improve outcomes. The electronic medical record is the computerization of health record content and associated processes, usually referring to an electronic medical health record in a physician’s office setting or a computerized system of files. Handheld electronic medical records improve physician performance and patient care. Thus mobile access to electronic medical records is the only way forward for pediatrics complex care areas such as the emergency cases in children care management.

References

Berdahl, C. T., Moran, G. J., McBride, O., Santini, A. M., Verzhbinsky, I. A., & Schriger, D. L. (2019). Concordance between electronic clinical documentation and physicians’ observed behavior. JAMA network open, 2(9), e1911390-e1911390. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11390

Harper, K., McLeod, M., Brown, S. K., Wilson, G., Turchan, M., Gittings, E. M., … & Charles, D. (2019). Teleneurology service provided via tablet technology: 3-year outcomes and physician satisfaction. Rural and remote health, 19(1), 98-104. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.144629141532600

Herbsman, J. M., D’Agati, M., Klein, D., O’Donnell, S., Corcoran, J. R., Folks, T. D., & Al-Qaqaa, Y. M. (2020). Early mobilization in the pediatric intensive care unit: a quality improvement initiative. Pediatric quality & safety, 5(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2Fpq9.0000000000000256

Jones, B., Vaux, E., & Olsson-Brown, A. (2019). How to get started in quality improvement. Bmj, 364. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5437

Kenawy, A. S., & Kett, V. (2019). The impact of electronic prescription on reducing medication errors in an Egyptian outpatient clinic. International journal of medical informatics, 127, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.04.005

Kiyarosta, N., Ghezeljeh, T. N., Naghashzadeh, F., Feizi, M., & Haghani, S. (2020). The effect of using smartphone applications on self-care in patients with heart failure. Nursing Practice Today. https://doi.org/10.18502/npt.v7i4.4041

Vaughn, J., Gollarahalli, S., Shaw, R. J., Docherty, S., Yang, Q., Malhotra, C., … & Shah, N. (2020). Mobile health technology for pediatric symptom monitoring: a feasibility study. Nursing Research, 69(2), 142. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FNNR.0000000000000403

Assessment Description
In this assignment, you will propose a quality improvement initiative from your place of employment that could easily be implemented if approved. Assume you are presenting this program to the board for approval of funding. Write an executive summary (750-1,000 words) to present to the board, from which the board will make its decision to fund your program or project. Include the following:

1. The purpose of the quality improvement initiative.
2. The target population or audience.
3. The benefits of the quality improvement initiative.
4. The interprofessional collaboration that would be required to implement the quality improvement initiative.
5. The cost or budget justification.
6. The basis upon which the quality improvement initiative will be evaluated.
You are required to cite a minimum of three peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

Executive Summary – Rubric

Executive Summary – Rubric

Purpose of the Quality Improvement Initiative

21 points

Criteria Description

Purpose of the Quality Improvement Initiative

5. Excellent

21 points

The purpose of the quality improvement initiative meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, is provided in detail, and demonstrates higher level thinking by incorporating prior learning or reflective thought.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

4. Good

18.69 points

The purpose of the quality improvement initiative meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail.

3. Satisfactory

16.59 points

The purpose of the quality improvement initiative is provided and meets the basic criteria for the assignment as indicated in the assignment instructions.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

15.75 points

The purpose of the quality improvement initiative is incomplete, missing relevant information.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The purpose of the quality improvement initiative is not provided.

Target Population or Audience

18.2 points

Criteria Description

Target Population or Audience

5. Excellent

18.2 points

The target population or audience meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail, while demonstrating higher level thinking by incorporating prior learning or reflective thought.

4. Good

16.2 points

The target population or audience meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail.

3. Satisfactory

14.38 points

The target population or audience is provided and meet the basic criteria for the assignment as indicated in the assignment instructions.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

13.65 points

The target population or audience is incomplete, missing relevant information.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The target population or audience is not addressed.

Benefits of Quality Improvement Initiative

18.2 points

Criteria Description

Benefits of Quality Improvement Initiative

5. Excellent

18.2 points

The benefit of the quality improvement initiative meet all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail, while demonstrating higher level thinking by incorporating prior learning or reflective thought.

4. Good

16.2 points

The benefit of the quality improvement initiative meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail.

3. Satisfactory

14.38 points

The benefits of the quality improvement initiative are provided and meet the basic criteria for the assignment as indicated in the assignment instructions.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

13.65 points

The benefits of the quality improvement initiative are incomplete, missing relevant information.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The benefits of the quality improvement initiative are not provided.

Interprofessional Collaboration Required to Implement the Quality Improvement Initiative

18.2 points

Criteria Description

Interprofessional Collaboration Required to Implement the Quality Improvement Initiative

5. Excellent

18.2 points

The interprofessional collaboration that would be required to implement the quality improvement initiative is clearly discussed and meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail, while demonstrating higher level thinking by incorporating prior learning or reflective thought.

4. Good

16.2 points

The interprofessional collaboration that would be required to implement the quality improvement is discussed and meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail.

3. Satisfactory

14.38 points

The interprofessional collaboration that would be required to implement the quality improvement is discussed and meets the basic criteria for the assignment as indicated in the assignment instructions

2. Less Than Satisfactory

13.65 points

The interprofessional collaboration that would be required to implement the quality improvement initiative is incomplete, missing relevant information.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The interprofessional collaboration that would be required to implement the quality improvement initiative is not discussed.

Cost or Budget Justification

18.2 points

Criteria Description

Cost or Budget Justification

5. Excellent

18.2 points

The cost or budget justification issue meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated by the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail, while demonstrating higher level thinking by incorporating prior learning or reflective thought.

4. Good

16.2 points

The cost or budget justification issue meets all criteria for the assignment, as indicated in the assignment instructions, and is provided in detail.

3. Satisfactory

14.38 points

The cost or budget justification is provided and meets the basic criteria for the assignment as indicated in the assignment instructions.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

13.65 points

The cost or budget justification is incomplete, missing relevant information.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The cost or budget justification is not provided.

Basis Upon Which the Program or Project Will Be Evaluated

18.2 points

Criteria Description

Basis Upon Which the Program or Project Will Be Evaluated

5. Excellent

18.2 points

The basis, upon which the quality improvement initiative will be evaluated as indicated by the assignment instructions, is provided in detail, while demonstrating higher level thinking by incorporating prior learning or reflective thought.

4. Good

16.2 points

The basis upon which the quality improvement initiative will be evaluated is provided in detail.

3. Satisfactory

14.38 points

The basis upon which the quality improvement initiative will be evaluated meets the basic criteria for the assignment as indicated in the assignment instructions.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

13.65 points

The basis upon which the quality improvement initiative will be evaluated is incomplete, missing relevant information.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The basis upon which the quality improvement initiative will be evaluated is not provided.

Thesis Development and Purpose

7 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

7 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good

6.23 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

5.53 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5.25 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Paragraph Development and Transitions

7 points

Criteria Description

Paragraph Development and Transitions

5. Excellent

7 points

There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless.

4. Good

6.23 points

A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose.

3. Satisfactory

5.53 points

Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5.25 points

Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

7 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent

7 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

6.23 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory

5.53 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5.25 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

2.8 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent

2.8 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good

2.49 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

2.21 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

2.1 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

4.2 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent

4.2 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good

3.74 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory

3.32 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.15 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.