Assessing Quality Improvement Efforts
Many quality improvement processes are continuous because they are subject to periodic reviews (Soklaridis, 2014). However, nurse managers need to employ the right tools for proper evaluations to occur. This paper explores the use of the learning organization as an evaluation tool for assessing quality improvement practices of Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Selected Evaluation Tool
The learning organization promotes continuous improvement efforts through periodic transformation processes (Akhnif, Macq, Idrissi Fakhreddine, & Meessen, 2017). Developed from the works of Peter Senge, this framework is an appropriate tool for evaluating Johns Hopkin’s quality management plans because the institution’s operations are inherently knowledge-based, and the learning organization provides a framework for reviewing evidence-based practices to improve quality standards (Soklaridis, 2014).
Benefits of Applying the Learning Organization
One advantage of using the learning organization at Johns Hopkin’s Hospital is its ability to provide the institution with the competitive advantage it needs to improve patients’ satisfaction levels (Soklaridis, 2014; Akhnif et al., 2017). At the same time, it could be used to create synchrony between the organization’s routine processes and its overarching quality goals (Akhnif et al., 2017). To generate these benefits, the framework assumes that hospitals are learning organizations where quality can be assessed relative to how well nursing managers integrate best practices and professional knowledge in their care delivery systems (Soklaridis, 2014).
How Evaluation Results Could Support the Organization’s Overarching Goals for Quality Improvement
The key quality indicators of John Hopkins Hospital are patients’ experiences, infection prevention, core measures, surgical volumes, quality of care ratings, and pediatrics (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2018).
As a nurse leader, I would use the results from the quality evaluation plan to meet the organization’s overall quality management goals by examining how the performance of the above-mentioned key performance indicators meet the hospital’s mission, which is to put patients’ interests first (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2018). I could use the balanced scorecard technique that requires organizations to clarify their vision and disseminate it into small and actionable steps to accomplish this objective (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). This way, the results from the evaluation plan could be useful in reviewing how well the institution’s quality performance indicators emphasize the need to put patients at the center of the quality management plan.
Summary
The goal of Johns Hopkin’s quality improvement plan is to put the interests of patients first by making the hospital accountable for the delivery of high-quality healthcare services. The learning organization could help to evaluate the organization’s quality processes by making sure that its service delivery plans align with this goal. The balanced scored technique could be used to accomplish this goal. Nonetheless, the overall usefulness of the learning organization model in quality management is founded on the principle that it provides a reliable framework for evaluating quality improvement initiatives.
Evaluating Interdisciplinary Collaboration Skills
This paper explores the benefits of inter-professional collaboration in meeting quality improvement goals. However, before delving into this analysis, the section below provides an analysis of my strengths as a health practitioner and their relation with inter-professional collaboration competencies
Analysis of Strengths and Application to Inter-professional Collaboration Competencies
As a health practitioner, two of my greatest strengths are effective communication and patient-centeredness. My communication skills are integral to my work because they help patients to feel at ease, in control, and valued by the healthcare team. The same skills play a complementary role in improving my patient-centered focus because I believe that patients have a role to play in improving their health.
These key strengths relate to two main areas of inter-professional growth – community-centeredness and inter-professional communication. Bainbridge, Nasmith, Orchard, and Wood (2010) highlight these competencies as two of six key domains related to inter-professional collaboration. The other four are role clarification, team functioning, collaborative leadership, and addressing inter-professional conflicts (Bainbridge et al., 2010).
Benefits of Inter-professional Collaboration for Meeting Quality Improvement Goals
Inter-professional collaboration is critical to the provision of quality care because it closes communication gaps and enables healthcare practitioners to provide comprehensive patient care (Petri, 2010; Nancarrow et al., 2013). For example, Bosch and Mansell (2015) say that interdepartmental team collaboration is often encouraged in inter-professional collaboration to minimize communication gaps.
Nancarrow et al. (2013) also encourage health practitioners to conduct multidisciplinary rounds in their workplaces to improve interdepartmental communication. Different teams could use this opportunity to give divergent views on the promotion of care plans, thereby improving quality standards. These examples show that collaboration within the service delivery structure minimizes communication gaps by allowing health professionals to interact on a personal level and share ideas about how well they should meet patients’ needs through a continuity of care framework (Braithwaite et al., 2012).
Lastly, collaboration helps to achieve quality improvement goals by enabling health professionals to provide comprehensive patient care (Bosch & Mansell, 2015). For example, Bosch and Mansell (2015) contend that the creation of a common unit of service delivery allows health practitioners to gain a comprehensive view of the organization’s operations compared to an alternate scenario where they work as independent teams. This statement is akin to a situation where each healthcare team has a piece of the “healthcare delivery puzzle” and the big picture can only be realized if each team uses their puzzle piece to envision the “greater whole” (Bosch & Mansell, 2015).
Summary
Based on the findings highlighted in this paper, inter-professional collaboration allows health stakeholders to get an in-depth understanding of patients’ needs, thereby improving quality management plans. Comprehensively, based on these insights, the importance of inter-professional collaboration cannot be overlooked in the quest to improve service delivery standards in the healthcare setting.
References
Akhnif, E., Macq, J., Idrissi Fakhreddine, M. O., & Meessen, B. (2017). Scoping literature review on the learning organization concept as applied to the health system. Health research policy and systems, 15(16), 1-12. Web.
Bainbridge, L., Nasmith, L., Orchard, C., & Wood, V. (2010). Competencies for interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 24(1), 6-11.
Bosch, B., & Mansell, H. (2015). Interprofessional collaboration in health care: Lessons to be learned from competitive sports. Canadian Pharmacists Journal, 148(4), 176-9. Web.
Braithwaite, J., Westbrook, M., Nugus, P., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J., Runciman, W., … Westbrook, J. (2012). A four-year, systems-wide intervention promoting interprofessional collaboration. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 99-106.
Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2018). Johns Hopkins medicine strategic plan. Web.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard – Measures that drive performance (reprint #92105). Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
Nancarrow, S. A., Booth, A., Ariss, S., Smith, T., Enderby, P., & Roots, A. (2013). Ten principles of good interdisciplinary teamwork. Human Resources for Health, 11(19), 1-11. Web.
Petri, L. (2010). Concept analysis of interdisciplinary collaboration. Nursing Forum, 45(2), 73-82.
Soklaridis, S. (2014). Improving hospital care: Are learning organizations the answer? Journal of Health Organization and Management, 28(6), 830-838.