Care Redesign for Higher-Quality

24/7 Homework Help

Stuck on a homework question? Our verified tutors can answer all questions, from basic math to advanced rocket science!

Care Redesign for Higher-QualityCare Redesign for Higher-Quality nstructions:Read the Care Redesign ArticleAnswer the following questions:Which four (4) components does the article point out are needed for the U.S. healthcare system to succeed?The one recommendation form the ten cited in the Institute of Medicine Report to improve quality and reduce cost that is described in the article?A recent factor to be identified of reducing cost is?Name four (4) factors that influence patient outcomes described in the article.Name the four (4) different nursing care delivery models and give a short description of each.What is the meaning of the term “lean” as described in the article.Summarize the method utilized in the study to offer a higher-quality and lower cost method for acute care in just a few sentences.Your paper should be:Typed according to APA style for margins, formatting and spacing standards.Typed into a Microsoft Word document, save the file, and then upload the file care_redesign_maJONA Volume 44, Number 7/8, pp 388-394 Copyright B 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins THE JOURNAL OF NURSING ADMINISTRATION Care Redesign A Higher-Quality, Lower-Cost Model for Acute Care Pamela T. Rudisill, DNP, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN Carlene Callis, BS, MHA Sonya R. Hardin, PhD, RN, CCRN, NP-C Jacqueline Dienemann, PhD, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN Melissa Samuelson, DNP, RN, NEA, BC OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to design, pilot, and evaluate a care team model of shared accountability on medical-surgical units. BACKGROUND: American healthcare systems must optimize professional nursing services and support staff due to economic constraints, evolving Federal regulations and increased nurse capabilities. METHODS: A redesigned model of RN-led teams with shared accountability was piloted on 3 medical/surgical units in sample hospitals for 6 months. Nursing staff were trained for all functions within their scope of practice and provided education and support for implementation. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes and patient experience scores improved with the exception of falls. Nurse satisfaction demonstrated statistically significant improvement. Cost outcomes resulted in reduced total salary dollars per day, and case mixYadjusted length of stay decreased by 0.38. CONCLUSION: Innovative changes in nursing care delivery can maintain clinical quality and nurse and patient satisfaction while decreasing costs. Healthcare systems in the United States must bridge the transition from volume to value-based models. Components required to succeed include clinical integration, implementation of technology, and clinical performance improvement with operational efficiencies to manage financial constraints.1 Nursing services encompass the majority of the workforce in today’s acute care hospitals.2 Historically, models of care have been based on a mix of registered nurses (RNs) and unlicensed assistive personnel (UAP) with occasional reference to licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and the assignment of workload. Evidence supports that patient needs are best met by planned skill mix and recognition that nurses are knowledge workers and need to be utilized in that manner.3,4 Models-of-care redesign that embeds improving efficiency and increasing accountability to patients’ clinical outcomes requires a cultural transformation.1 All major changes in care design should be evaluated for their evidence-based and desired changes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a pilot implementation of a shared accountability delivery model for medical-surgical patients that allowed licensed nurses and UAP to practice at their full authority through delegation and collaboration in RN-led teams. Author Affiliations: Senior Vice President and Chief Nursing Officer (Dr Rudisill), Community Health Systems, Franklin; and Assistant Vice President Strategic Resource Group, Vice President Strategic Planning American Group (Ms Callis), HCA, Nashville, Tennessee; Professor (Dr Hardin), College of Nursing, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina; and Professor Emeritus (Dr Dienemann), School of Nursing, UNC Charlotte and Nurse Researcher Carolinas Medical Center University, North Carolina; and Chief Nursing Executive (Dr Samuelson), Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center, Missouri. Community Health Systems is a registered trade name of Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Correspondence: Dr Rudisill, Community Health Systems, 4000 Meridian Blvd, Franklin, TN 37067 (pamela.rudisill@hma.com or pam_rudisill@chs.net). DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000088 388 Background The healthcare system in the United States is in a state of rapid and unprecedented change with pressures to improve clinical quality and patient health and increase patient satisfaction, while curtailing costs. Care Redesign for Higher-Quality.The Institute of Medicine report5 cites 10 recommendations to ensure better health, higher-quality care, and lower costs. One recommendation was to optimize operations by continually improving healthcare operations to reduce waste, streamline care delivery, and focus on activities that improve patient health. The primary challenge of delivering care in acute settings is managing increasingly JONA Vol. 44, No. 7/8 July/August 2014 Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. complex patients with shorter lengths of stay (LOSs) while ensuring integration of care upon discharge and beyond. Recent studies demonstrate that lowering costs is dependent on increasing patient safety rather than changing nursing salary or staffing expenses.6 Nursing factors influencing patient outcomes include number of hours per patient-day (number of staff), quality of work environment, educational level of nurses, and mix of skills among nursing staff. These factors interact among each other with varying effects on patient outcomes.7-11 Increasingly, nurse satisfaction is related to recognition that RNs are knowledge workers whose time should be utilized in decision making regarding patient care and safety.4 team realized several approaches underutilized RN delegation, did not utilize LPNs at all, and did not require RNs, UAPs, or LPNs to practice to their full scope. We did identify 1 computer simulation model utilizing the RN, LPN, and UAP, which incorporated principles of the lean to enhance the role of the RN, LPN, and UAP in the care delivery of patients.20 Lean is a concept adapted from manufacturing to streamline processes, reduce cost, and improve care delivery. Each process must add value or be eliminated as waste (or muda in Japanese) so that ultimately every step adds value to the process.21 The simulation demonstrated that teams of RN, LPN, and UAP assigned in a mix to fit patient acuity of a group of patients wasted less time than patient allocation assignments. Nursing Care Delivery Models Delivery of nursing care has traditionally been delivered in 1 of 4 ways.12-14 Shirey14 discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various models. The earliest model is patient allocation or total patient care with groups of patients assigned to 1 nurse with no UAPs. Because of shortages during and after World War II, task or functional nursing was emphasized, allocating more complex care to RNs and routine care to UAPs. Team nursing evolved with RNs as leaders of UAPs for a group of patients. Primary nursing identified 1 nurse to assume 24-hour responsibility for a patient with communication to RNs, LPNs, and UAPs who participated in care throughout the patient stay. This model of care has been coined relationship-based care.12 One new, novel approach is to expand primary care to coordinating care after discharge, with the RN assuming care as the primary nurse for readmissions.14,15 This model of care fits in the new modes of accountable care transition coordination. The recent Institute of Medicine report on the future of nursing16 advocates for RNs to perform to their fullest potential and to become effective leaders and partners in the organization. This parallels the American Organization of Nurse Executives guiding principles for the role of the nurse in future patient care delivery.17 These position statements call for new innovative models of nursing care delivery. Care Redesign for Higher-QualityIn 2005, Partners Healthcare in Boston, Massachusetts, conducted a search of innovative nursing care delivery models for adult, acute care patients that integrated technology, support systems, and new roles to improve quality, efficiency, and cost. They identified over 40 models that shared common elements of an elevated RN role, sharpened focus on the patient, smoothed patient transitions and handoffs, leveraged technology, driven by results that were measured systematically, and used for feedback to improve the innovations.18 A few new models emerged requiring shared accountability.19 In reviewing these models, our Development of Novel Nursing Care Redesign We decided to develop a shared accountability model utilizing RN-led teams with LPNs and UAPs, functioning to their fullest potential, matching the skillmix potential to meet the patient’s needs. We piloted the model on medical-surgical units in 3 community hospitals in 3 states. The goals were to improve clinical quality of care and nurse job satisfaction through use of accountable teams and balanced caregiver workload while controlling or reducing costs. JONA Vol. 44, No. 7/8 July/August 2014 Methods The pilot was implemented on 1 medical-surgical unit at each of 3 hospital sites in Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Each hospital differed in overall bed size and urban/rural market location. The leadership in administration (chief executive officer, chief nursing officer) was supportive and knowledgeable of lean principles, the purpose of the nursing care redesign, and the importance of evaluation. Our 1st step was to review the scope of practice for RNs, LPNs, and UAPs in each state where we planned to pilot the program (Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi). We then reviewed the job descriptions at the hospitals and found that all legal functions were not included. Policies, competencies, and job descriptions were revised for the LPN and UAP to ensure highest level of practice. To ensure patient safety, education was developed and provided to UAPs and LPNs to achieve competencies in all functions. Examples of the enhanced competencies for the UAPs included simple dressing change, oxygen setup, performing blood sugars, discontinuing Foley catheters, and discontinuing peripheral intravenous lines. The LPN-enhanced competencies varied the most among the selected states. Some included administering intravenous medications and starting intravenous lines. 389 Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. In order to assess level of patient needs, an acuity tool was needed that was valid, efficient, portable between units, reliable, and maintainable.22 Duke University Hospital System had designed and evaluated a tool beginning in 2003 that assesses patient’s acuity based on the complexity of care or instability of a patient’s health status. Nurses used it with a personal digital device. In time, it had been modified to reduce input while maintaining validity for multiple settings. Patients are assessed on 6 patient factors and 4 nursing care demand factors, resulting in 1 of 4 levels of complexity of care. The results are to ensure balance of workload with competency level of staff and patient acuity. The tool was used with permission (e-mail communication, August 2012, November 2012, August 2013). The Morse falls risk assessment23 and Braden skin care assessment24 were added to the tool. No formal evaluation of the modified tool has been made. New processes adopted were bedside shift report for all caregivers of the team and formal bed huddles for teams to be done at a minimum of every 4 hours with new acuity assessment, daily patient goals, and expected LOS review, as well as any identified patient safety issues (Figure 1). Care Redesign for Higher-Quality.ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL NURSING PAPERSThe clinical outcome data chosen for evaluation were based on existing methodologies and collection practices reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other national organizations. These included falls per 1,000 patient-days, falls with injury severity of greater than 1, rate of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, medication errors per 10,000 doses, number of sentinel events, and number of near misses. Unit LOS; rate of readmissions for congestive heart failure (CHF), myocardial infarction (MI), and pneumonia within 30 days; and core measure scores were also collected. Cost was based on average LOS and cost per patient-day. Patient satisfaction used the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) data across the 8 domains.25 New survey questionnaires on nurse and physician satisfaction were developed for the specific medical-surgical units that reflected key elements on the model design and based on the hospital-wide surveys performed by Press Ganey.25 Preimplementation Institutional review board approval was received from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC. Materials were prepared, and site coordinators were trained in data collection of patient outcomes and confidentiality processes to distribute and collect questionnaires. Upon collection, data and questionnaires were forwarded to the office of the corporate chief nurse executive for data entry. Original forms were stored in a locked cabinet. To establish a baseline for all key metrics prior to implementation, the following were collected: (1) 390 nurse/staff and physician satisfaction, (2) patient outcomes and patient safety indicators, (3) financial information, and (4) patient satisfaction. For the clinical outcome and financial metrics, data for the same 6 months of the planned pilot in the previous year were used. Each pilot hospital assumed responsibility for implementing the education in new skills and verifying that all UAPs and LPNs had mastered the identified competencies prior to initiating the model. Job descriptions were updated. RNs’ job expectations shifted to focus on decision making for delegation and assurance of quality, patient teaching, patient care coordination, and collaboration with other health professionals. Each team had an RN leader and either 2 UAPs or 1 LPN and 1 UAP. Patient assignments were for that shift. Each job description was reviewed to ensure clarity of role function. An 8-hour course for all the nursing staff on the pilot medical-surgical units at the 3 hospitals was designed and led by the research team. The course began with an overview of the new delivery model and job descriptions for RNs, LPNs, and UAPs. The new acuity tool was reviewed, and its purpose to share workload fairly discussed. The plan to assess patient care needs and review in huddles every 4 hours to maintain equity was reviewed. Delegation and collaboration were then discussed with case examples. Emphasis was placed on each person working to their enhanced scope of practice and to share accountability for patient outcomes. This was followed by a simulation exercise where staff was assigned teams with case scenarios. Nurses left expressing enthusiasm for their new roles. Implementation and Evaluation The new model was introduced, and all staff was provided support to comply. When turnover occurred during the 6 months of the study, categories of new hires were chosen to support the model implementation. At the end of the 6-month period, all metrics were collected and measured against the established baseline. Findings Nurse satisfaction showed the most statistically significant improvement in comparison to all other measures included in the study. Forty-four nurses (86%) completed the presurvey, and 36 (69%) completed the postsurvey. Care Redesign for Higher-QualityA paired-samples test was performed to identify any significant change from the implementation of the new care model. While all responses demonstrated a positive trend, 6 items showed statistically significant improvement: teamwork among coworkers, appropriate delegation, sense of accomplishment in their work, enjoyment coming to work, satisfaction with JONA Vol. 44, No. 7/8 July/August 2014 Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Figure 1. Bed huddle. workload, and satisfaction with job (Table 1). Patient satisfaction showed slight improvement according to the HCAHPS scores in 3 of the 8 domains. JONA Vol. 44, No. 7/8 July/August 2014 Within the 8 domains, physician communication resulted in a statistically significant improvement at P = 0.013 when an analysis of variance was performed. 391 Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Table 1. Paired-Samples Test Nurse Survey Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Pre-Post Response Items (n = 36) Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair 1: good teamwork 2: delegation appropriate 3: sense of accomplishment 7: enjoy coming to work 9: satisfied with workload 11: satisfied with job Mean SD SE Mean Lower Upper t df P (2-Tailed) 0.69444 0.75000 0.41667 0.47222 0.68571 0.44444 1.26083 1.25071 0.99642 1.13354 1.47072 1.25230 0.21014 0.20845 0.16607 0.18892 0.24860 0.20872 0.26784 0.32682 0.07953 0.08869 0.18050 0.02073 1.12105 1.17318 0.75381 0.85576 1.19093 0.86816 3.305 3.598 2.509 2.500 2.758 2.129 35 35 35 35 34 35 .002 .001 .017 .017 .009 .040 P e 0.05. Most clinical quality indicators showed signs of improvement, including core measures, hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, medication errors, near misses, and CHF, MI, and pneumonia readmissions. Independent t tests of samples were performed to examine the difference between the mean of incidence of indicator before and after the intervention. Although improved, none were statistically significant (Table 2). A composite core measure score for the hospitals, excluding elements of care provided in the emergency department, revealed improvements in the pilot hospitals. Financially, the pilot resulted in reductions in costs. Cost reduction was realized through the use of proper discharge of lower-acuity patients, proper work allocation, and staffing-mix allocations resulting from workload rebalancing. Based on analysis on each unit, using year-over-year comparison, case mixYadjusted LOS decreased by 0.39 days on average for all 3 units. In addition, the ALOS average for the 3 units was below the mean LOS by 0.38. In addition, all 3 units resulted in reductions in salary per patient-day of approximately 2% to 3%. One of the 3 units proved to be the best comparative model, as it had the most stability in its workforce and adhered closely to the staffing workload balance guidelines. This unit reported an equivalent decrease in RN hours to the increase in LPN and UAP hours (a rebalance of approximately 5.0 full-time equivalents). Improving the Environment of the Workplace Although the study did not set out to improve the workplace environment, the achievements in this area Table 2. Independent-Samples Test of Quality Indicators Levene Test for Equality of Variances Equal Variances Assumed or Not Assumeda Decubitus ulcer CHF readmit PN readmit Acute MI readmit Fall rate Fall injury (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) F P 4.484 .042 2.254 .142 0.297 .589 4.321 .045 0.446 .509 11.102 .002 t Test for Equality of Means t 1.112 1.112 1.671 1.671 1.219 1.219 1.087 1.087 0.122 0.122 j1.458 j1.458 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference df P (2-Tailed) Mean Difference SE Difference Lower Upper 34 17 34 29.643 34 33.971 34 24.808 34 32.337 34 17 .274 .282 .104 .105 .231 .231 .284 .287 .903 .903 .154 .163 0.41056 0.41056 0.5 0.5 0.33333 0.33333 0.22222 0.22222 0.11278 0.11278 j0.11111 j0.11111 0.36922 0.36922 0.29918 0.29918 0.2735 0.2735 0.20435 0.20435 0.92281 0.92281 0.07622 0.07622 j0.3398 j0.36844 j0.108 j0.11131 j0.22248 j0.2225 j0.19306 j0.1988 j1.7626 j1.76616 j0.26601 j0.27192 1.16091 1.18955 1.108 1.11131 0.88914 0.88916 0.6375 0.64325 1.98815 1.99171 0.04379 0.0497 Abbreviations: CHF, chronic heart failure; MI, myocardial infarction; PN, pneumonia. P e 0.05. a (1) Equal variances assumed, (2) equal variances not assumed. 392 JONA Vol. 44, No. 7/8 July/August 2014 Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. deserve special recognition. It was noted by all 3 pilot sites that the engagement in innovation, education, and new tools and methodologies brought about an e … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10 Order NowjQuery(document).ready(function($) { $.post(‘https://nursingpaperessays.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php’, {action: ‘wpt_view_count’, id: ‘8681’});});jQuery(document).ready(function($) { $.post(‘https://nursingpaperessays.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php’, {action: ‘mts_view_count’, id: ‘8681’});});

Hire a competent writer to help you with

Care Redesign for Higher-Quality

troublesome homework