Three Major Healthcare Delivery Outcomes - Research Paper Example

SPO Lecturer SPO Introduction With daily rise in competitive provision of healthcare there has been a significant rise in quality of service delivery that in the long run assist in measurement of outcomes or satisfaction of the consumers. It is therefore critical for the organizations that offer health care to implement strategies that provide effective heath care that manages to appeal to the customer base as well as to control costs in favor of the patients. By improving structure and the process aspects of the health care provision, the overall evaluation that is done by patients will in the long run be compared to global ratings of what are the most acceptable standards. More importantly, there is always a sophisticated method that is used to measure outcome of patients which contains questionnaires that details of what happens before and after treatment. This kind of method has the possibility of leading to the rise of associations that can be witnessed between overall evaluation and the outcome of the received healthcare. (Lukosius, 2004). With these ideas in mind, the health care system should make it compulsory to put into effect the ideas that can attract and retain the patients as well as the talented employees whose capability is good for the growth and development of the firms that conduct health care services. In SPO, it is advisable to embrace a conceptual model that encompasses three major health care delivery outcomes. They include quality, resource stewardship and service. SPO therefore tends to recognize health care perspectives that are embraced by leading organizations if they are to stay on top of the famous firms that are appreciated. Measures. In SPO, measures appear under three deep categories that are used in quality work. The three include process, structure and outcome. (Hamric, 1989). Structure: This dimension talks broadly of the facilities and physical equipment that are involved in the provision of health care. It refers to the actual setting whereby health care is delivered. Structure talks more about the availability of adequate facilities, operations of programs, administration structure, the equipment and the qualification levels of the personnel involved in provision of health care within the institution. Through the understanding derived from the aspect of structure, it is important to note that with such kind of knowledge supportive structures as well as upgraded system should be made available to boost system of health care. The structures should be made accessible and understandable so that they are concrete and readily available. As at now. The APN toolkit has no form of instruments that can be used to measure the success of structure and its implementation. (Guest, 2001). Process: Process here talks about the way the system works. Process deals squarely with how the health care has been provided. The scrutiny is in terms of how competent, how complete, how appropriate and how acceptable the kind of care provided is. The measurements under process are somewhat less definite when compared to the measurements found under outcomes. There are instruments under processes that can enable a deeper understanding of the whole health care system. These instruments include: communication, performance appraisal, patient knowledge and the quality of care. (Bryant, 2007). Communication: this entails the kind of attitude shown towards the team’s scale of the health care system. The style of interaction witnessed in the way the patients are handled also falls under the aspect of communication. Self presentation witnessed when interviewing patients as well as the questionnaires conducted to find out the health care climate also fall under this aspect of communication in the process of provision of health care and the pursuit of its successful implementation. Patient knowledge majorly deals with PKQ which is the patient knowledge questionnaire or even the process of checking high blood pressure and its prevention. Quality care was observed in scrutiny of patients with HIV as well as in the conditions that showed care indicators. Process is therefore a broad category that talks deeply about vital and highly important aspects in the provision of updated health services in a competitive environment where most firms are coming up with ideas of benchmarking to get to the intended destinations of quality provisions in health care. (Hamric, 1989). Outcomes: This aspect refers to the actual end points as seen in the system of caring for patients. It talks about the end products of the whole system of heath care and the achievement of the objectives that are set with the same goal of achievement in mind. The aspect of recovery may involve the idea of survival, recovery or even the improvement in function. Outcomes can be measured as they are sort of concrete as compared to the other aspects under the same level of discussion under SPO. This aspect often always has its fair share of hardships such as the difficulty in precisely measuring attitude and satisfaction. Choosing the most appropriate system of measurement could also prove to be rather difficult. The instruments that have been designed to measure outcomes are divided into the headings such as health providers, patients as well as health organization and system instruments. Under patients there are such tools such as in the headings like mental health, the general status of health, patient satisfaction, child development, pain assessment as well as the quality of health. Furthermore, under health providers, we have such tools as provider satisfaction and APN education then under systems and organization there are such instruments such as cost and the outcomes of the health systems. (Donabedian, 2005).  In measurement of performance, process measures are used. They are in a way a bit easier to construct as compared to any other form of measurement that can be thought of. The system is easier to construct as it requires less amount of data to be collected to facilitate its construction. The system is also quite easy to comprehend for both those practitioners that work in and out of the clinics. An example whereby many EDs in the country have made efforts to enhance patient care. For the construction of this process requires such measures that must be strictly adhered to, it is therefore important to note that it requires experts to implement it successfully. Such important aspects may include the recognition of process of interest, the actual review of the presented evidence, the aspect of developing an indicator of process as well as the construction of a data collection system that is standardized. (Hamric, 1989). When a firm wants to develop process measures, there are more factors that have to be implemented such as the population of patients that can be cared for at a given specific time. The kind of process measure that is chosen also has to have the ability to reveal the strengths and weaknesses as well as provide the opportunity for the improvement based on the outcome so as to submit a desired outcome after all is said and done. Over the years, a system of grading has been fronted to evaluate guidelines used in measurement of development. Through this grading system, the highest scorers are those that enjoy the support of large groups of clinical critics as in the example of AMI patients and the systolic failure patients that have heart conditions and those that need ACE inhibitors. The lowest scorers have the support of a large base as well but lack the support of scientific evidence in process indicators and the kinds of scientific research involved in the whole process. It is therefore important to note that when one chooses a process that enjoys a strong link to an outcome that is always favorable, then there is always a reduction in the need to continuously measure the outcome as the process initially chosen erases all doubts. For the valuable development of this process indicator, it is relevant to define the legible populations, the development and selection of appropriate method of data collection as well as the development of a relevant abstraction tool. Though this approach in getting the final outcome can some times prove to be costly and time consuming, they are relevant and more often necessary in ensuring the real validity and reliability of the indicator of the process selected. In the case whereby this process is executed well, then the process indicator generation will often require little or no supervision in most cases though not all. (Donabedian, 2005).  The clinical outcome measures have a tendency of examining the points that are discretely focused on development of patients. The measures give much importance to such aspects as mortality, morbidity or even the length of stay when it comes to matters that concern clinical issues. It is often necessary to adjust and develop a system that can majorly isolate the contribution of the said systems of healthcare to the outcome that is seen at the end of it all. An example where this case is applied in a scenario is that which the cancer patients and the death rate as well as it relationship with the age of the patients and how differently the people of different ages have cancer mortality increasing with the age. A risk adjustment is therefore required if a conclusive finding that is accurate is to be arrived at. A method that is used to adjust the outcome to fit into the set objectives of the entire process of this cancer discussion in relation to age is the case of cancer mortality and the direct influence it has on the findings that are acceptable to the society at large. Risk adjustment in this case can put aside the effect of age and hence the necessity of the whole idea of risk adjustment comes in. the findings from these kinds of studies can also be applied effectively by many other stakeholders like the consumers who would in the long run put together the information gathered and use it effectively in purchasing decisions of what is right and what is not. (Lukosius, 2004). Concerns have also been raised regarding such factors as adjustment models, data sources and the risks that can be attributed to any aspect discussed before and how they have been raised through these measurements. These kinds of concerns should not be put aside as they are real problems that have to be handled effectively and well before they get out of hand. This is majorly because ignoring such concerns can lead to erroneous conclusions that will confuse the consumers, the providers of health care as well as the payers in this field. (Bryant, 2007). Conclusion In conclusion therefore, SPO is an important aspect in the provision of health care and the logistics that are involved. Outcomes management can also be concluded to represent a new area in research and the entire field of medicine to help understand the problems that arise from daily clinical routines. A continued growth in research and outcomes will enable stakeholders expand the debate in emergency medicine. References Bryant, D. (2007). Oncology Advanced Practice Nursing (APN) Role Implementation Toolkit. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario. DiCenso, A. (2009).  Resources to Facilitate APN Outcome Research. New York:  Springer Publishing Company. Donabedian, A. (2005).  Evaluating the quality of medical care.  Guest, D. (2001). Preliminary evaluation of the establishment of nurse, midwife and health visitor consultants. Report to the Department of Health. University of London, Kings College. Hamric, A.(1989). Role development of the CNS. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. Lukosius, D. (2004). A framework for the introduction and evaluation of advanced practice nurse roles. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(5), 530-540. McNamara, S.(2009). Development and implementation of the specialized nurse practitioner role: Use of the PEPPA framework to achieve success. Nursing and Health Sciences. Read More