Health Improvement Project

Introduction

There is a definite need for adequate safety and quality improvements in the health care sector. Quality health care is defined as the degree to which health care services designed for the common public is aimed at increasing the likelihood of the desired health outcomes and it is consistent with the current knowledge in the healthcare profession altogether. According to a study by the Institute of Medicine, majority of the medical errors that take places are caused due to systems and processes that are faulty and not due to the human error. The healthcare processes are largely variable and can be inefficient sometimes, considering the large mix of patients, difference in the healthcare provider’s experience and education, health insurance policies and a variety of other factors that may be involved in making a healthcare system relatively more complex in the overall management (Rosenthal, et al, 2004). This paper is aimed at devising a new and highly innovative patients and consultants server at Cleveland Clinics that are setting up its healthcare facilities in the West End of London by the end of 2021.

Understanding of the Current System/Process

The implementation of this new and improved server in the Cleveland Clinics is aimed at making the patient’s experience with the healthcare system a streamlined one without any delays or unnecessary waits for scheduling their appointments. The consultants will also be able to connect with their patients through a more effective channel. The implementation of this new innovative system is based upon the objectives proposed by Institute of Medicine (IOM) that will make the health care system more proficient:

• The services provided to the patient need to be more effective.
• The health care system needs to put safety of the patients first above everything.
• The system will be patient-centred in every manner.
• The services provided at Cleveland Clinics need to be timely.
• The service providers need to be highly efficient in providing state-of-the-art services at the Cleveland Clinics.
• The system should be equitable for all the actions made under its name.

Cleveland Clinics had been successful in other regions and its setting up in London implies that it would have to incorporate unique infrastructures into the systems. The older softwares in use are inefficient and with the passage of time it requires rapid upgradation to provide time effective solutions for the needs of the patients. Now one may think as to why a health care system’s quality needs to be measured. In order to well determine and identify the effects of the health care system and to assess whether the processes involved within the system are adhering to some set scientific evidences or to a professional consensus or agreeing to the patient’s preferences (Schoen, et al, 2007; Reed, et al, 2018).

Since research suggests that majority of the errors are caused by the system or due to a procedure failing dramatically, it is rather important to adopt such process improvement tools and techniques that are able to spot inefficiencies, inadequate care and avoidable errors that can further influence some changes within the system. This is the exact approach adopted by Cleveland Clinics, they aim to make use of such techniques deployed by health care systems that are able to well assess the performance and then accordingly make use of the findings to make adequate changes for the benefit of the system (Brand, 2019).

Rational and drivers for the improvement

As Mosadeghrad (2013) has reflected upon the main essence of quality healthcare by stating, “It is the process of consistently delighting the patient by providing efficacious, effective and efficient healthcare services according to the latest clinical guidelines and standards, which meet the patient’s needs and satisfies providers”. The main rational for quality improvements at Cleveland Clinics is to make the entire system more efficient in a way that it is adhering to the needs of the patients in every manner. The patient’s needs are at the heart of any healthcare system and it involves the efforts of everyone involved within the healthcare system, the healthcare professionals, the patients, their families, medical researchers, planners and even educators in order to bring in continuous quality improvements in terms of the system’s performance and better development of the professionals (Batalden and Davidoff, 2007).

It is a popular belief that the frameworks and models incorporated for quality improvements are mostly patient-centred only reason being that it helps the health care system to bring in adequate quality changes and improvements according to the needs of the patients in an appropriate and streamlined manner. Referring back to the six elements proposed by Institute of Medicine, they only refer to significance of patients in enhancing the overall quality of the healthcare facilities. Moreover, the studies have pointed out that wherever there is a mention of enhancing the quality of healthcare, there has been some reference made to the patients receiving it in one way or the other. The main rationale for bringing in health improvements in the healthcare systems is to better serve the patients only with the support given by the main drivers like the health caregivers, health professionals, educationists, policy makers etc. (McMillan, et al, 2013).

Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement Plan

The engagement of key stakeholders is a key significant element in the improvement of healthcare quality overall. The methods of communication and engagement are rather unique to establish strong stakeholder relations in the long term for the healthcare systems. Now involving stakeholders at all the vital stage of a healthcare management program can help ensuring early buy-ins, successful program designing and establishing long support programs for the benefit of the system. Who are these stakeholders? For Cleveland Clinics, they can be the legislators imposed by the state, staff members, healthcare providers, advocacy community and the patient. The stakeholders engagement can be enhanced through meetings with the communities involved and the care providers who are all responsible for implementing changes in the quality improvement projects within the healthcare sector. Communicating regularly is the key to gaining beneficial outcomes not just for the patient, but for the healthcare system in totality as well. Once the stakeholders are made aware regarding the changes and the entire process of quality improvement programs, they can provide their feedback as well. In this manner, when the program is implemented, carrying out routine communications with the stakeholders regarding the programs failures, successes and any new alterations in it, they will be better able to manage the expectations of the stakeholders (Rosenthal, et al, 2004).

Numerous different strategies can be incorporated into striking effective dialogue with the key stakeholders involved within the healthcare system. Cleveland Clinics can make use of Awareness programs that are the most common ones and are usually used by healthcare providers to educate the communities, the patients and even the local staff in some systems. These awareness programs can be extensive trainings or teaching sessions that may be pondering over the significance of quality improvements within the healthcare domain. Moreover, the continuous feedback channel help ensures the involvement of the stakeholders at all stages to effectively identify synergies between the newly implemented changes in the system and its potential outcomes in the future (Reed, et al, 2018).

Risk Analysis

There may be number of benefits attached with the implementation of such quality improvement projects but they have their share of risks associated with them as well. The resistance from the stakeholders can pose some problems and challenges in the implementation of improvement interventions in the healthcare sector. Only because the healthcare system is inclined towards making changes to improve the services, the outcome is never guaranteed at the time it is initiated. The stakeholders need to have adequate amounts of trust vested in the system to ensure that it is able to attain what it intended in the first place (Crawford, et al, 2002).

Another risk that cannot be avoided is the lack of effective leadership to lead the way to change and improvement for the particular healthcare system. Leadership for quality improvement can be a relatively tricky thing to implement, as it requires setting out a clear vision for the followers but also keeping in mind their views and opinions throughout the process. The stakeholders feel most motivated towards these goals when they feel they are being made an essential part of the core decision-making processes (Schoen, et al, 2007).

The main motive of these changes and quality improvements at Cleveland Clinics is to secure sustainable outcomes for the provider in the long-term. If the quality changes fail to stick around for a long time, the stakeholders will lose interest and the patients who are at the centre of these quality changes, will eventually lose the trust in the system. Patient’s care is the primary motive of these healthcare programs and if that is not ensured, the system will breakdown at one point of time. Lastly, the implication or the side effects of the quality improvements can also be more costly for the healthcare providers in dealing with the risks and continuous challenges associated with the program. It is a well-set idea that the risks and challenges cannot be entirely removed from the implementation process and it is of utmost significance for the success of the program to make sure that it is well accepted by all stakeholders and across all associated parties (Bryson and John, 2004).

Expected benefits/impact/outcome

The main benefit of this particular quality improvement initiative in healthcare system lies in the convenience it provides for the patients through the systematic and well-organized approach that will optimize the care provided to the end-patients without causing any potential delay. It is normal that when the process is being improved, it potentially reduces the chance of redundancy and failure in the provision of safe healthcare services to the patient altogether. The main motivation behind improving any healthcare program is to make it a more responsive and a value based initiative for the well-being of the patient altogether (Abelson, et al, 2018).

When a healthcare system is being continuously invested upon like that of Cleveland Clinics and it is bringing in regular quality improvements, it is actually turning the system into a proactive system rather than reactive. The healthcare system is better able to identify problems and cater to it in an effective manner even before they take place (Crawford, et al, 2002). The main advantage of this particular quality improvement project at Cleveland Clinics is the cost-effectiveness that it offers in the long-term. Rapid upgradation in technologies being incorporated into the healthcare systems are reliable and relatively more streamlined and as evidence suggests, less expensive to maintain for the healthcare systems. As quality improvements are initiated, the system is turned more efficient, wasteful activities are removed and the energy or other mediums of inputs are also more appropriately managed. By initiating quality improvement projects into the system in the form of cost-effective, reliable and sustainable healthcare services and procedures, the healthcare providers are better able to provide a wholesome caregiving environment through enhanced outcomes on the patient’s wellbeing altogether. At Cleveland Clinics, the aim it to keep these quality initiatives at its heart and that is one of the reasons to gain sustainable growth in the future for a long time (Schoen, et al, 2007).

Approach/Methods to be utilized

For a healthcare system to effectively introduce quality improvement plans, it is important for it to consider its internal system as a complete collection of microsystems that are interrelated. The microsystems can be made of small multiple units comprising of administrators, caregivers and the other staff involved in the healthcare system who are collectively responsible for the final “outcome” within a hospital to the end-patients (Linton, et al, 2019).

In the case of this project based upon Cleveland Clinics in London, it is aiming to introduce an automated server within the hospital care facility to effectively manage the data of the patients and to better keep a track of the services and the procedures involved in the system altogether. The idea is to transfer the already existing large pools of widely distributed data, into a new software to fully facilitate the needs of the patients, streamline the processes involved in the hospital and get rid of the redundant or the time consuming tasks that take hours to complete. It is all a matter of effective collaboration of all the significant stakeholders who can help ensure the accomplishment of these quality initiatives at all levels within the healthcare facility. The manual data managing is already a very out-dated technique and the healthcare facilities based in the UK had already shifted to computerized data but even though, a new advanced software can help in better organizing and scrutinizing large sources of data and information. The healthcare system is also planning to introduce a mobile application where the patients can book their appointment, view their past records and even contact their health practitioners in cases of emergency. This is a convenient approach for the patient as well as the healthcare system where the data and information is largely being automatically managed and even the system can better utilize it in a manner that is quick as well as handy for the patients. A research conducted in the U.S. recommends that Health information technology (IT) systems such as electronic health records and computerized physician cases entry hold the potential to improve quality while enabling them to cut down on the costs. The main aim of this intervention is to further curtail down the time consumed on screening large pools of data to reach out to past records of the patients and focus entirely on enhancing the overall speed of processing data and information within the healthcare system altogether (Ferlie and Shortell, 2001).

Evaluation Plan

The main driving force of the processes and services involved in the healthcare systems are the continuous quality improvements made for its patients. If the patient is satisfied with the services and the processes involved in the healthcare system, there is great potential for the healthcare system to experience long-term sustainable growth in the future. The main motivation for any healthcare system is to be able to sustain its growth and gain some significant prominence within the healthcare domain of its surrounding environment (Schouten, et al, 2008).

Now in order to gauge the effectiveness of this particular intervention in the healthcare systems through a unique and innovative new software that helps in better managing the records of the patients and also keeps  a track of the cases being managed by each individual general practitioner or care giver in an effective manner. This has not only contributed in the reduction of costs but has also enabled the healthcare systems to launch to better manage the times and curtail the long hours spent on the managing, recording and planning of patients specific activities. This is the digital era and if a healthcare system is able to facilitate its patients through digital media, they are likely to get most satisfied with it as it is more convenient for them and it is also quicker. The mobile application is seemingly a hit amongst majority of the patients, mostly the younger ones who do not appreciate the long hours waiting for their appointments or running after doctors. The youth is majorly influenced through this digital intervention and even the older generations are guided substantially so that their processes are also more streamlined and effectively managed (Davies, et al, 2000).

Conclusion

Healthcare facilities are in dire need of continuous quality improvements as medicine is one field that does not seem to stop when it comes to innovation and creativity. The main driving force for the healthcare systems to innovate with the processes and services are the continuous quality improvements that are initiated for its patients. If the patient is satisfied with the services and the processes involved in the healthcare system, there is great potential for the healthcare system to experience long-term sustainable growth in the future. The systems need to be continuously upgraded if they aim to stay competitive and gain more prominence within the health sector of UK altogether.

References

Abelson, J. et al. 2018. Evaluating Patient, Family and Public Engagement in Health Services Improvement and System Redesign. Healthcare Quarterly 21: 61–67. DOI: 10.12927/hcq.2018.25636.

Batalden, P. B, and Davidoff, F. 2007. What is quality improvement and how can it transform healthcare? Quality Safety in Health Care 16(1): 2-3.

Brand, S. 2019. An innovative approach to boosting patient and public involvement. Nursing Times 115(8): 52–55.

Bryson, John M. 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques.  Public Management Review 6(1): 21-53.

Crawford, M.J., Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Bhui, K., Fulop, N. and Tyrer, P., 2002. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. Bmj, 325(7375), p.1263.

Davies, H.T., Nutley, S.M. and Mannion, R., 2000. Organisational culture and quality of health care. BMJ Quality & Safety, 9(2), pp.111-119.

Ferlie, E.B. and Shortell, S.M., 2001. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), pp.281-315.

Linton, M.-J. et al. 2019. Developing a framework of quality indicators for healthcare business cases: a qualitative document analysis consolidating insight from expert guidance and current practice. BMC Health Services Research 19(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4269-9.

McMillan, S. S. et al. 2013. Patient-centred approaches to health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Med Care Res Rev.

Mosadeghrad, A. M. 2014. Factors influencing healthcare service quality. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 3(2): 77-89. DOI:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.65.

Reed, J. E., Kaplan, H. C. and Ismail, S. A. 2018. A new typology for understanding context: qualitative exploration of the model for understanding success in quality (MUSIQ). BMC Health Services Research 18(1): 584. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3348-7.

Rosenthal, M.B., Fernandopulle, R., Song, H.R. and Landon, B., 2004. Paying for quality: providers’ incentives for quality improvement. Health Affairs, 23(2), pp.127-141.

Schoen, C., Osborn, R., Doty, M.M., Bishop, M., Peugh, J. and Murukutla, N., 2007. Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults’ Health Care Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007: Actual experiences with health care systems bring to light, and to life, the systemwide problems in these countries. Health Affairs, 26(Suppl2), pp.w717-w734.

Schouten, L.M., Hulscher, M.E., van Everdingen, J.J., Huijsman, R. and Grol, R.P., 2008. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. Bmj, 336(7659), pp.1491-1494.