- BHA FPX 4106 Assessment 2 Benchmarks And Quality Measures
Benchmarks And Quality Measures
As the below points clearly illustrate realizing and implementing quality measures and standards is very relevant when it comes to delivering better patient care. These guidelines are therefore set as basic standards of practice to compare the providers’ practices with national and state norms.
For the chosen condition, [Insert Condition, e.g., asthma], it is critically important to define and then compare the above-mentioned benchmarks with the data gathered within the office to make sure that our patients are receiving the level of care which is up to par with the required standards. By using statistical analysis of the trends and evaluating some of the pertinent quality indicators, it is possible to obtain key information on the outcomes of clinical practices and make actual decisions regarding the further enhancement of the process (AHRQ, 2019).
Statistical Trends
Some criteria need to be set up to filter the sources of statistics to evaluate which one is most relevant to the selected condition and which trends are meaningful enough to be analyzed. First of all, it is for the credibility and reliable sources. For example, the CDC and AHRQ are given preference because they help in researching public health concerns and the quality of health care that is to be provided.
These sources are also chosen concerning the type of data that is being offered in terms of the clinical focus of the condition and its management. Importantly, the data timeliness raises the bar, with a preference for data from the last five years, as this provides the most up-to-date picture of healthcare norms and procedures (CDC, 2020; AHRQ, 2021).
Significance and specificity are major considerations in the sample selection process. National or state sources that offer statistics, particularly for the condition are given preference because these numbers make it possible to compare with the office statistics.
For instance, rates of hospitalizations, treatment compliance, or mortality tend to be from sources such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA or the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) are deemed to be highly relevant. Furthermore, it appears that sources that provide more detailed information, for example, by age, gender, and so on or by comorbidities, or geographic, are more useful for comparison, as do office data (HCUP, 2020).
Quality Measures
When it comes to the consideration of quality measures related to a selected condition, twelve cogent and explicit criteria ought to be used. First, the importance of the applicability of those quality measures to the clinical practice cannot be overestimated.
This entails making certain that the measures directly relate to managing the selected condition, in terms of aspects like patients’ regimen compliance, patients’ health status, as well as the efficiency of the treatment guidelines in use. For example, when the condition is diabetes, the measures that involve HbA1c levels, blood pressure, and foot and eye examination are chosen because they reflect on patients’ health and disease complication prevention (NCQA, 2019).
BHA FPX 4106 Assessment 2 Benchmarks And Quality Measures
It must be accurate in other words; it has to be clinical care measures that are backed up by research and other evidence that show that improving the quality will increase patients’ care. Measures that get support from recognized organizations like the National Quality Forum (NQF) or Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) tend to be a high priority because they are most likely to have been through testing and are also familiar to most members of the healthcare community. These measures are chosen according to their capacity to accurately measure the quality of the care that is delivered, and their capacity to cause changes in clinical practices (CMS, 2021).
The relevance of the quality measures to the particular group of patients or the particular practice environment is important. This entails reflecting on whether or not these measures can be valid and reliably applied to the patient population within this office and practice setting. For instance, quality measures must reflect the characteristics of the patient such as age, gender, and co-morbidity; they have to ensure that the chosen quality measures will be meaningful and applicable to the given office’s environment (AHRQ, 2019).
Compatibility of Data
To check the compatibility of data from many sources, meaningful and stated criteria that can enable comparison of the data must be used. The first criterion is the ‘‘harmonization of data definitions’’. This involves making sure that the data points that have been used in the cross-source analysis refer to the same variables or else indicators. For example, when comparing data on patients’ outcomes from various health facilities it is important that the notion of ‘treatment success’ has the same meaning in all sources. If one defines success as the condition in which the symptoms will recede after six months, and the second – as the improvement of the quality of life during the same time, then the results will not be equivalent (CMS, 2020).
It is important to use consistent methods of data measurements for different variables under study. There is a need to align, synergize or standardize the methods of collecting, aggregating, and storing data. This includes using sets of universally agreed codes like the ICD-10 for results of diagnosis or CPT codes for procedures which make the data to be categorized following one set of classifications no matter the system being used. When the methods of data collection are different, there can be some variations, and thus false statements and conclusions (AHRQ, 2021).
Another criterion taken into account is the temporal consistency of data, which means that data sources must be synchronized in terms of the time in which the information was created. One limitation to recognizing them as reliable categories is that data collection can only be undertaken at predetermined time intervals.
For instance, it may not make much sense to compare patient satisfaction scores collected in the year 2022 from one facility with the patient satisfaction scores collected in the year 2018 from another facility because the patient expectations and some of the practices in the provision of health care have changed in between the two years. It is compulsory to make sure that data from various sources is gathered from the same period so that they are compatible (NCQA, 2019).
Effects of Health Information Quality on an HIE
A key step toward assessing the possible adverse impacts linked to the submission of flawed or insufficient details by facilities to a Health Information Exchange (HIE) is a recognition of a set of multiple dissimilar approaches. One of them is a threat to the patients themselves; Now, when the data is incomplete or erroneous, the wrong clinical decisions are made, for example, wrong prescriptions, which may lead to adverse drug events.
For instance, if a patient’s report of having an allergy to a certain medicine is missing or if it has been entered wrong into the database, a physician will then prescribe the relevant medicine to the patient, a move that can cause dangerous harm to the patient’s life (HealthIT. gov, 2021).
The other situation that falls under the category is the disruption of the continuity of care. HIEs are planned in a way such that patient information can easily be shared between the various actors in the healthcare sector. However, when data exchanged also includes only a part or is incorrect, it may cause interruption in the continuity of care. For instance, if a patient’s medical data, including past or cured diseases or treatments, does not enter a system clearly and without distortions, further caregivers will not receive the most complete information about the patient, which is necessary for adequate further treatment.
This could result in repeat tests with the patients, delays in treatment, or misdiagnosis (AHRQ, 2020). Issues of financial impact are also another important concern that is usually met by these solutions. Incorrect reporting of data can trigger problems with billing and hence in imitations to the amount of money that will be needed to pay the charges between the providers and the beneficiaries.
For instance, coding of procedures or diagnoses could be done wrongly which would result in the denial of claims, hence calling for a follow-up to rectify the issue may result in to delay of reimbursements. In addition, the figures that are not precise will lead to fines for non-observance of the rules of healthcare or quality reporting, which can also adversely affect the financial security of healthcare institutions (CMS, 2019).
Conclusion
In conclusion, goal and quality indicators important markers in determining the performance of healthcare practices from a national and state perspective. These markers provide primary baselines against which the efficiency of care provision can be measured, gaps in the care delivery processes can be discovered, and the general quality of the care being delivered can be evaluated about recognized standards.
Therefore, through the proper selection of data relevant and accurate, there is a provision of meaningful comparison hence giving better outcomes in patient care. Furthermore, the provided data represents tendencies over time that enable the researcher to outline the areas of improvement or concerns in the future. Lastly, the use of benchmarks and quality measures offers a way for the healthcare system to improve on daily practice to have better quality and safer patient care which is the greatest aspect of healthcare management. Read more about our sample BHA FPX 4106 Assessment 1 for complete information about this class.
References
Bevan, G., Evans, A., & Nuti, S. (2019). Reputations count: Why benchmarking performance is improving health care across the world. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 14(2), 141–161.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133117000561
George, B., Verschuere, B., Wayenberg, E., & Zaki, B. L. (2020). A guide to benchmarking
COVID‐19 performance data. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 696–700.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13255
Giles-Corti, B., Lowe, M., & Arundel, J. (2019). Achieving the sdgs: Evaluating indicators to be used to benchmark and monitor progress towards creating healthy and sustainable cities. Health Policy, 124(6).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.03.001
Harutyunyan, H., Khachatrian, H., Kale, D. C., Steeg, G. V., & Galstyan, A. (2019). Multitask learning and benchmarking with clinical time series data. Scientific Data, 6(1), 96.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0103-9
Heidenreich, P. A., Fonarow, G. C., Breathett, K., Jurgens, C. Y., Pisani, B. A., Pozehl, B. J., Spertus, J. A., Taylor, K. G., Thibodeau, J. T., Yancy, C. W., & Ziaeian, B. (2020). 2020 ACC/AHA clinical performance and quality measures for adults with heart failure. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 13(11).
https://doi.org/10.1161/hcq.0000000000000099
Kanwal, F., Tapper, E. B., Ho, C., Asrani, S. K., Ovchinsky, N., Poterucha, J., Flores, A., Ankoma‐Sey, V., Luxon, B., & Volk, M. (2019). Development of quality measures in cirrhosis by the practice metrics committee of the american association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology, 69(4), 1787–1797.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30489
Low, D. E., Kuppusamy, M. K., Alderson, D., Cecconello, I., Chang, A. C., Darling, G., Davies, A., D’Journo, X. B., Gisbertz, S. S., Griffin, S. M., Hardwick, R., Hoelscher, A., Hofstetter, W., Jobe, B., Kitagawa, Y., Law, S., Mariette, C., Maynard, N., Morse, C. R., & Nafteux, P. (2019). Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Annals of Surgery, 269(2), 291–298.