- BHA FPX 4106 Assessment 2 Benchmarks And Quality Measures.
Benchmarks And Quality Measures
As the points below clearly illustrate, realizing and implementing quality measures and standards is very relevant to delivering better patient care. These guidelines are, therefore, set as basic standards of practice to compare provider’s 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 ensure that our patients are receiving the level of care that is up to par with the required standards.
By using statistical analysis of trends and evaluating some of the pertinent quality indicators, it is possible to obtain key information on clinical practice outcomes 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).
BHA FPX 4106 Assessment 2 Benchmarks And Quality Measures
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 allow comparisons with 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
Twelve cogent and explicit criteria ought to be used when considering quality measures related to a selected condition. First, the importance of the applicability of those quality measures to clinical practice cannot be overestimated.
This entails ensuring that the measures directly relate to managing the selected condition in terms of aspects like patients’ regimen compliance, patients’ health status, and 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, clinical care measures have to be backed up by research and other evidence showing that improving the quality will increase patient 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 measure the quality of the care that is delivered accurately and their capacity to cause changes in clinical practices (CMS, 2021).
It is important to consider the relevance of the quality measures to the particular group of patients or the particular practice environment. This entails assessing 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 patient’s characteristics, such as age, gender, and co-morbidity; they must 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 data comparison must be used. The first criterion is the “harmonization of data definitions.” This involves making sure that the data points used in the cross-source analysis refer to the same variables or other 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 is 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 data measurement methods for different variables under study. The methods of collecting, aggregating, and storing data need to be aligned, synergized, or standardized.
This includes using universally agreed-upon codes like the ICD-10 for diagnosis results or CPT codes for procedures, which categorize the data according to one set of classifications, no matter the system used. When the methods of data collection are different, there can be some variations, which can lead to false statements and conclusions (AHRQ, 2021).
BHA FPX 4106 Assessment 2 Benchmarks And Quality Measures
Another criterion taken into account is data temporal consistency, 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 2022 from one facility with those collected in 2018 from another facility because patient expectations and some practices in the provision of health care have changed between the two years. It is compulsory to ensure that data from various sources is gathered from the same period to be compatible (NCQA, 2019).
Effects of Health Information Quality on an HIE
A key step toward assessing the possible adverse impacts of submitting flawed or insufficient details by facilities to a Health Information Exchange (HIE) is recognizing 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 so that patient information can easily be shared between various healthcare actors. 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 data reporting can trigger problems with billing and hence increase the amount of money that will be needed to pay the charges between the providers and the beneficiaries.
For instance, wrong coding of procedures or diagnoses could result in the denial of claims; hence, calling for a follow-up to rectify the issue may delay reimbursements. In addition, inaccurate figures 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 are important markers in determining healthcare practices’ performance 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 based on recognized standards.
Therefore, the proper selection of relevant and accurate data provides for meaningful comparison, hence improving patient care outcomes. Furthermore, the provided data represent tendencies over time that enable the researcher to outline areas of improvement or concerns in the future.
Lastly, using benchmarks and quality measures offers a way for the healthcare system to improve 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 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases practices metrics committee. 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.