Standard of the ustrlin Ntinl Safety and Quality lth Standards - Report Example

Report on the Imрlеmеntаtiоn of Standard1 of the Аustrаliаn Nаtiоnаl Safety and Quality Неаlth Standards Name Institution Overview of Standard 1: Governance for safety and Quality in Health Service Organizations The National Safety and Quality Health Standards (NSQHS) were designed in a collaboration effort between the Australian commission on safety and quality in healthcare and other health institutions, technical experts, patients and health professionals. They are geared towards providing a quality assurance mechanism. The quality assurance mechanisms ensure that there are relevant health systems to cater for minimum quality and safety standards (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2012). The other principal reason is to provide a quality improvement mechanism that aligns health service organizations with development goals. This way, the NSHQS standards ensure that the organizations achieve their development goals. The standard 1 of NSQHS focuses on the governance in a bid to attain quality, safety and reliability and quality care for patients thus improve the patient outcomes. It offers a criterion to bring about the formation of an integrated governance system that aims at reliable and quality patient care. Rationale for the Development of the Standard The need for the standard in health care stems out of various reasons that are critical to patient care and improved patient outcomes (Duckett, 2007).There is need for performance and skills management among the health workers, improvement of the present clinical governance and quality systems to achieve efficiency, manage incidents and complaints that are rising in recent times and consider the rights of the patients and their engagement. The nature of the clinical practice necessitates Standard 1 Governance for Safety and Quality in Health Service Organisations. The role of this is to ensure that the workforce in a health care facility is guided the prevailing best practice. There is need for good clinical governance that focuses on evidence and effectiveness of the interventions. The pathways in the clinical practice need to be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness (Braithwaite, Healy, & Dwan, 2005). The ultimate expectation is that every clinical service will go under scrutiny. This is particularly important in recent times as the standards of health care needs to be promoted through clinical governance. This can be attained through designing of effective guidelines, policies, and protocols for diversified clinical interventions clinical governance, in addition, will check whether the intervention is not only appropriate but also if it represents a good value for money. There is continuous emerging evidence that necessitates the refinement of the clinical practice to ensure that it conforms to the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2012). Additionally, the emerging evidence demands that individual patient care achieve the maximum quality and reliability. This can later be spread to the rest of the community. In a profession where adherence to the clinical guidelines has a major impact on the output, the standard proves instrumental in promoting the accountability of clinical officers through good clinical governance. The patient outcomes are better while the quality and reliability of health care improves in an environment characterized by better clinical governance (Rodwin, 2000). The performance and qualifications of the clinical workforce is essential to quality and reliable output. According to Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (2012)his demands a mechanism to ensure that the clinical workforce contains people with the right skills and qualification to uphold safety and quality health care standards.This implies that the patient’s outcome depends on not only the systems of control or governance but also the individuals. The safety and quality health care standards demand that the patients be put in no or minimum possible risk. One of the ways to do this is to ensure that the workforce has the right qualifications in a process known as “credentialing” (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2012). Here, the credibility of the individual qualification, professionalism, and experience is checked. Additionally, the standard demands that performance development be taken in changing times. As the professional requirements evolve, there is need for the clinical workforce to show conformity. The issue that affect the performance of the workforce are also highlighted, and corrective action is taken. The individuals participate in the process, and this ensures that they have the right states of mind to do their work effectively (Rovner, 2003). It was imperative for the standard to consider the human resource aspect in the health care delivery as it has a direct impact on the goals of the standards. It is inevitable to encounter incidence that may compromise the health state of patients. Patients quality and safety incidents occur, and they need to be identified as soon as possible. The follow-up actions of reporting, analyzing, and designing of a corrective measure need to be taken to rectify the situation. Complaints and suggestions offer very significant information regarding the safety and quality states of health care. The complaints impact the devising of interventions that conform to the best practices and health policies, for the current situation and the future. The essence of incidents and complaints reporting is to offer a learning environment. Consequently, there can be improved service delivery at all times rather that avoidance of the pressing safety and quality issues. Standard 1 aims to encourage the reporting of incidences so that appropriate actions can be taken to maintain or improve the safety and quality standards of health care in Australia. The reasoning behind Standard 1 is that patients have rights that need to be respected. Also, their engagement needs to be supported in very way. For the reasons, the standard advocates for the consideration of the rights of patients in terms of safety and communication. Patients need to be informed of every decision that pertains to their health care(Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2000). They are to be safeguarded from harmful effects. Effective communications enables a good clinical worker-patient relationship characterized by trust and openness (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2012). By supporting patient engagement, clinical workers stand to obtain relevant feedback that can aid in improvement of quality and safety practices. It also establishes the patients’ priority needs. Patient participation should be evident in every level, and its role prioritized in plans, research, management, and policy development. The provisions of the Standard 1 ensure that the health care is structured to meet the demands of the customer and respect his/her rights. Role of staff, consumers, management, and Board in the implementation of the Standard In the implementation of the standard, the staffs conduct various activities that impact the quality and safety of health care. Clinical staff Supervise and instruct other members of eth workforce especially the non-clinical workforce and subordinates They follow the set guidelines and policies as well as ensure they adhere to professional standards Engage in the review of performance as a team or as an individual They communicate with patients to record their priorities and feedback for safety and quality improvement Non-clinical staff Help in locating the limitations of safety and quality measures through provision of feedback Alert clinical staff on issues relating to the patient's response and conditions (Thornlow, Anderson, & Oddone, 2009) Management Observe the implementation of the safety and quality systems to ensure they do not present difficulties or contradictions Monitor the safety and quality systems for unexpected outcomes Offer appropriate education and training for clinical and non-clinical staff about better safety and quality practices Support partnerships between clinicians and patients Monitor the performance of staff and ensure they are compliant to professional and health standards Oversee the governance of quality and safety systems. Board of Directors or owners Planning and evaluation integrated safety and quality systems over time Offer support to patient and clinicians partnerships Stipulate and distinguish the roles of individuals in the organization and ensure that they conform to the goals and objectives of the integrated system (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2011). Strategies for Measuring Success It is imperative for a health care organization to review its progress. This demands that the institution set strategies that measure it success. Consequently, it can identify the areas that achieve the expected outcomes and the ones that do not achieve the expected outcomes. Clinical audits, patient satisfaction surveys, benchmarking, and incident reports are all compatible with the Standard I provisions. A clinical audit reviews the conformity of health care to the recommended health care standards. The audits communicate the state of health care to both the patients and the health care workers (Asbury & Ashwell, 2007). In standard 1, it aids implantation as it highlights the successes and points out the areas that need improvement. The patient and workers can proceed with activities that contribute to the success while the failing areas prompt the management and workers attention. It tells where the management’s clinical policies/governance is working as expected. Benchmarking in health care also aims at safety and quality improvement by way of comparison. Benchmarking metrics provide motivation to achieve safety and quality to be above a certain standard that is considered good (Pantall, 2001). Standard 1 implementation in relation to benchmarking checks the performance of clinical governance with other institutions that are performing well or national averages. Additionally, it checks the workforce output in terms of quality. If the benchmarks are not achieved, the management takes actions or reviews the policies for better performance. Patient satisfaction surveys measure the quality of service by recording consumer feedback. The feedback guides the follow-up actions. If the feedback is positive, it implies that the workforce and managers can proceed in the same way. It may also signify the strength of the partnership between the patient and the workforce. Negative feedback shows lack of trust in the partnerships and delivery ineffectiveness. Incident reports record the number of incidences in a health institution. It signifies the strength of the communication channels and the commitment of the workforce to learning and promoting safety and quality standards. They are mandatory to assess the implementation of Standard I, especially in the objective of obtaining feedback on complaints and incidences to structure performance. In conclusion, the standard 1 of National Safety and Quality Health Standards (NSQHS) focuses on safety and quality of healthcare through good governance. Its development was initiated by the need for better clinical governance, better workforce output because of having the necessary skills, better complaints and incidences management and the need for considerations of patients’ rights and engagement. These can work towards safer and quality health care especially if the staff, management, and the board perform their roles exceptionally. The success of the implementations can be measured by clinical audits, benchmarking, patient satisfaction surveys and incident &complaints reports. References Asbury, S., & Ashwell, P. (2007). Health and safety, environment and quality audits. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2000). Windows into safety and quality in health care. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety in Quality in Health Care. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2012). Safety and Quality Improvement Guide Standard 1: Governance for Safety and Quality in Health Service Organisations. Sydney: ACSQHC. Australian Institute of Company Directors. (2011). The board's role in clinical governance. Sydney, N.S.W: Author. Braithwaite, J., Healy, J., & Dwan, K. (2005). The Governance of Health Safety and Quality. Commonwealth of Australia. Clinical Practice Guidelines Portal - Home. (2012). Retrieved May 29, 2015, from http://www.clinicalguidelines.gov.au/ Donaldson, L. J. (2001). Safe high quality health care: investing in tomorrow's leaders.Quality & Safety in Health Care. doi:10.1136/qhc.0100008. Duckett, S. J. (2007). The Australian health care system. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2002). Quality & safety in health care. London: BMJ Pub. Group. Jorm, C. (2011). Reconstructing medical practice: Engagement, professionalism, and critical relationships in health care. Farnham, Surrey: Gower. Pantall, J. (2001). Benchmarking in healthcare. Journal of Research in Nursing. doi:10.1177/136140960100600203 Rodwin, M. A. (2001). The Politics of Evidence-Based Medicine. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law. doi:10.1215/03616878-26-2-439 Rovner, J. (2003). Health care policy and politics A to Z. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Thornlow, D. K., Anderson, R., & Oddone, E. (2009). Cascade iatrogenesis: Factors leading to the development of adverse events in hospitalized older adults.International Journal of Nursing Studies. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.06.015 Western Australia, Western, A., & Western Australia. Department of Health. Office of Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2005). Setting standards for making health care better: Implementing clinical governance in WA health services 2005. East Perth, W.A: Dept. of Health. Read More