You are the Quality Director of a local health system. Your organization has dec

You are the Quality Director of a local health system. Your organization has decided to seek accreditation through the Joint Commission. Your first task has been penned by the CEO to prepare for the accreditation process by conducting a literature review on the impact of accreditation on quality of care. The review of literature should include the historical underpinnings of quality initiatives since the publishing of the blockbuster report by the Institute of Medicine – To Err is Human – and an evaluation of the developments in quality initiatives over the past two decades. Upon completing the review of literature, you are asked to compile a report highlighting the history of quality improvement and the significance of quality initiatives on the future of care delivery. Your report should support the organization’s goal of earning accreditation through the Joint Commission.InstructionsComplete a report that encompasses the history of Quality Healthcare, which focuses on the ways in which quality improvement has changed over time and how past initiatives shape current and future quality initiatives. At a minimum, your report should include:An assessment of the accreditation process and its role in improving quality of care.
A review of the quality initiatives that have been developed in recent years and the impact of the initiatives on the quality of care delivered.
Support for accreditation based on the review of literature on quality from the historical perspective to future implications.
A discussion on the fundamental changes that have been implemented since the IOM’s report and potential for continuous quality improvement.
Recommendations for your organization to prepare for the accreditation process based on your review of literature and your assessment of the overall process.Grading rubric:
A – 4 – MasteryClear and thorough assessment of the accreditation process and its role in improving quality of care. Includes comprehensive examples with multiple supporting evidence.0B – 3 – ProficiencyDetailed assessment of the accreditation process and its role in improving quality of care. Includes example with supporting evidence.0C – 2 – CompetenceBasic assessment of the accreditation process and its role in improving quality of care.0F – 1 – No PassNo or insufficient assessment of the accreditation process and its role in improving quality of care.0I – 0 – Not SubmittedNot Submitted0
Criterion 20% of total gradeA – 4 – MasteryClear and thorough review of the quality initiatives that have been developed in recent years and the impact of the initiatives on the quality of care delivered. Included comprehensive descriptions with multiple supporting examples.0B – 3 – ProficiencyDetailed review of the quality initiatives that have been developed in recent years and the impact of the initiatives on the quality of care delivered. Included specific description with at least one supporting example.0C – 2 – CompetenceBasic review of the quality initiatives that have been developed in recent years and the impact of the initiatives on the quality of care delivered.0F – 1 – No PassNo or insufficient review of the quality initiatives that have been developed in recent years and the impact of the initiatives on the quality of care delivered.0I – 0 – Not SubmittedNot Submitted0
Criterion 30% of total gradeA – 4 – MasteryComprehensive analysis of the support for accreditation based on the review of literature on quality from the historical perspective to future implications. Included three or more examples of the differences between quality assurance and quality improvement.0B – 3 – ProficiencyElaborative analysis of the support for accreditation based on the review of literature on quality from the historical perspective to future implications. Included at least two examples of differences between quality assurance and quality improvement.0C – 2 – CompetenceBasic analysis of the support for accreditation based on the review of literature on quality from the historical perspective to future implications.0F – 1 – No PassNo or insufficient information analysis of the support for accreditation based on the review of literature on quality from the historical perspective to future implications.0I – 0 – Not SubmittedNot Submitted0
Criterion 40% of total gradeA – 4 – MasteryReport contained clear, concise, and thorough discussion on the fundamental changes that have been implemented since the IOM’s report and potential for continuous quality improvement.0B – 3 – ProficiencyReport contained basic discussion on the fundamental changes that have been implemented since the IOM’s report and potential for continuous quality improvement.0C – 2 – CompetenceReport contained basic discussion on the fundamental changes that have been implemented since the IOM’s report and potential for continuous quality improvement.0F – 1 – No PassNo or insufficient discussion on the fundamental changes that have been implemented since the IOM’s report and potential for continuous quality improvement.0I – 0 – Not SubmittedNot Submitted0
Criterion 50% of total gradeA – 4 – MasteryComprehensive recommendations for your organization.0B – 3 – ProficiencyElaborative recommendations for your organization.0C – 2 – CompetenceBasic recommendations for your organization.0F – 1 – No PassNo or insufficient recommendations for your organization.0
Requirements:

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

Get 20% off your first purchase .USE THE CODE VPXC

X
CLICK HERE TO ORDER