Quality healthcare

 

All HCOs should continuously strive for QI. According to the Institute of Medicine, quality healthcare is defined as “the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge.” I agree with this definition of quality healthcare. The outcome of the care the patient experiences after treatment should meet or exceed their expectations.

However, this is not always the case. Patients have negative experiences that impacts their quality of life. According to Strome (2013), value should always be defined in relation to the customer, in this case patients. If patients don’t experience a positive outcome by the care they receive, it’s not valuable to them. In order to improve the quality of care patients receive, an HCO must measure and analyze their data. Quality must be measured, monitored, and analyzed. Healthcare managers can use this data to make decisions and act to improve the quality of care patients receive.

Healthcare is continuously in a state of transformation. Because of continuous changes that are occurring in healthcare, HIT must keep up and ensure that the data contains some value for those who use it. According to Strome, (2013) there are four main activities associated with maintaining a data system that supports the needs of the HCO. They are data modeling, data creating, data storage, and data usage. All four activities must operate synergistically to ensure that the data is high-quality and can be used by healthcare leaders to make decisions. Data governance is used within an HCO to ensure the integrity of analytics. Healthcare data governance and stewardship can evaluate data quality, identify issues, and make changes as needed (Strome, 2013). They can also maintain storage for the data and ensure that the data is used properly and is accessible to the people that need it.

Q2

 

Quality healthcare is more than just a popular phrase. Nowadays value-based care moving forward, the focus of inpatient care is shifting to quality and away from quantity. According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences, which defined quality health care as “safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient and equitable.” In addition, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) defines quality health care “as doing the right thing for the right patient, at the right time, in the right way to achieve the best possible results.”

As per my opinion Quality healthcare mean the use of evidence-based practice and increase patient satisfaction. (Steiner, 2017)

Value in health care is the measured improvement in a person’s health outcomes for the cost of achieving that improvement. Often, patients cannot get reliable information on the important outcomes and overall costs of their treatment options. With better information on value — outcomes, satisfaction, and costs — patients could make more confident decisions about getting the care they need while spending no more than necessary. (Niall Brennan, 2021)

If we talk about data governance, it is important because it brings meaning to an organization’s data. Data governance is about managing data and processes so data can be used as a consistent, secure, and organized asset that meets policies and standards. Data governance helps create a shared language. Moreover, it brings people together to collaborate.

There are many other reasons why data governance important

Data Governance Saves Money: Data governance reduces errors in your database, giving your business a solid database to work from and saving precious time that would otherwise be used to correct your existing data. Time saved is money saved.

Bad Data Governance is Risky: Lack of effective data governance is a security concern for 2 reasons: outside security risks associated with dirty, unstructured data, and regulatory compliance issues.

Sample Solution

process of system improvement, DJS has taken significant steps to sustain and enhance the results achieved through JDAI. DJS has improved data capacity and the routine use of data to inform management decisions about detention utilization; refined its DRAI to ensure fair, objective and risk-responsive detention admission decisions; and invested in the robust array of ATDs for Baltimore City. DJS has also built internal capacity and infrastructure to ensure that the processes, practices, and principles of JDAI are integral to the Department’s day-to-day operations. DJS’s Systems Reform Unit, comprised of a Director of Systems Reform, several local detention managers, and a team of case expediters, works directly with line staff across the Department to operationalize reforms.

Given these investments, CCLP is confident that DJS will continue to sustain the results of past and current strides in detention reform. However, this assessment highlighted three main barriers to diversion at this phase of the juvenile justice process in Baltimore City. First, many stakeholders reported that engagement among stakeholders has waned and the Baltimore City JDAI Oversight Committee has not met regularly for some time. Many expressed concern that if Baltimore City officials do not make an intentional effort to reconvene and refocus the work of this group over the next few months, then the collaborative process that is so essential to the success of JDAI will be irreparably damaged or lost. In order to advance Baltimore City’s detention reform work, this group will need to galvanize around new and more ambitious goals for reducing secure detention utilization, enhancing access to community-based alternatives, and improving outcomes for young people who come into contact with the justice system in Baltimore City.

With new administrative leadership on the juvenile court bench in Baltimore City, several officials noted plans to reconvene the JDAI Oversight Committee, which is encouraging. However, many also expressed concern about past levels of engagement from key partners, namely BPD, which reportedly had not been consistently represented on the JDAI Oversight Committee. In some cases, the BPD was absent from the collaborative table. In other cases, BPD designees to the JDAI Oversight Committee were not executive-level BPD staff with the authority to i

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.