Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Capella University Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Capella University Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Capella University Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
The introduction for the Capella University Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
After the introduction, move into the main part of the Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
NHS-FP6004 Assessment 1: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
In everyday health practice, health care practitioners and organizations work to achieve a set target. They commit their energy and resources to meet the desired levels of care quality and patient safety as legally, ethically and professionally required. To achieve the desired outcomes, health care providers are guided by performance benchmarks. From a health care perspective, dashboards serve as the most reliable analytic tools for monitoring key performance indicators. They contain metrics that enable health care providers to access crucial patient statistics and intervene approximately as areas of underperformance obligate. Based on the dashboard data for substance use disorder (SUD) at an emergency room (ER), this paper explains the implications of underperformance in key areas and the role of stakeholders in performance improvement.
Dashboard Metrics for CareM Medical Center (ER): Last quarter 2019
| Area of Performance | Status | Target | Compliance Percentage |
| SUD screening | 450 | 400 | 100% |
| Waiting hour average | 80 minutes | 40 minutes | 50% |
| Motivational interviewing for SUD | 180 | 150 | 100% |
| Number of beds | 10 | 20 | 50% |
| Nurse: patient ratio | 1:5 | 1:4 | 80% |
Hospital overview: CareM Medical Center is located in Bakersfield, California. Operating majorly in an under-resourced setting, the facility targets low-income earners. For a while, substance use disorder (SUD) has been a key focus area in the center’s emergency room. The data indicates areas of underperformance, implying that interventions are necessary to change the described state.
Evaluation: Metrics not Meeting Organizational Benchmark
Health care organizations must meet benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care laws or policies. The targets indicated on the dashboard are quality performance standards that CareM Medical Center should strive to meet consistently. Based on this data, the metrics not meeting the benchmark include SUD screening, waiting hour average, number of beds, and nurse to patient ratio. It is a genuine concern considering the areas affected critically affect patient outcomes.
Health Care Policies Establishing the Benchmarks
Located in Bakersfield, CareM Medical Center is primarily regulated by California laws. The number of patients served daily, referrals, and emergency care should follow California health law. It is also crucial to consider what federal policies recommend about the stated benchmark metrics. The average waiting time in an emergency room (ER) is forty minutes. The other area governed by law is the nurse to patient ratio in the ER. California recommends a ratio of 1:4 (Dembosky, 2020). The number of beds should be adequate to prevent overcrowding. From this evaluation, attention should shift to practices that can reduce waiting time in the ER. However, the evaluation could have been better if there was data to compare progress over time. For instance, data in the other three quarters in 2019 can help examine the progress to ascertain whether attention should be on reducing waiting time to meet the federal recommendations or other areas.
Challenges Associated with Meeting Prescribed Benchmarks
Meeting the prescribed benchmarks is always challenging from an organizational perspective. To ensure that patients are adequately served, health care providers and medical equipment must be sufficient. Interprofessional collaboration should be high enabled by modern health technologies, among other means. To achieve this, health care organizations must look for the necessary resources to address current and emerging needs. They are forced to search for operational and capital funding and invest resources to get the required financial resources. Support services must be plenty too. Since health care organizations are not investment-oriented, the inadequacy of resources usually hinders them from serving patients and the community as their strategic missions envisage.
Financial and operational challenges are central to the underperformance seen in staffing. For health care organizations to have the required number of health care providers, adequate financial resources are vital. Processes such as recruitment, motivation, and performance appraisal depend on financial resources. Salaries for the extra workforce and facilities such as accommodation are money-based. Accordingly, the nurse: patient ratio will depend on the organization’s resources to a considerable extent. Based on CareM’s setting, the nurse-patient ratio of 1:5 is sensible, albeit the need for improvement.
Benchmark with Great Impacts on Overall Performance
From the highlighted underperformance areas, the nurse: patient ratio in the ER can significantly improve overall performance. Nurse: patient ratio affects nurses’ productivity since it can deter their motivation and ability to work due to heavy workload if the ratio is too high (Gutsan et al., 2018). Overworking as nurses try to achieve the set benchmarks leads to nurse burnout. The nurse: patient ratio in the ER determines how nurses approach routine care without making medication errors. Handling a manageable number of patients allows nurses to work on patients quickly and avoid overcrowding in emergency rooms (Hawk & D’Onofrio, 2018). If not overwhelmed, nurses would also be better positioned to liaise with outside physicians to determine whether patients require emergency visits accurately.
Benchmark of Interest: Average Waiting Hour
Together with the number of beds, the average waiting hour is the benchmark I chose for improvement. In the medical center, the average waiting time is eighty minutes, double the allowable average of forty minutes. A review of the causes of high waiting time in emergency rooms revealed that beds’ inadequacy is a leading cause. The other reason is that medical facilities do not give outside physicians the privilege to admit patients, making ER visits higher than usual. Unless the issue of referrals is addressed, the situation is unlikely to change soonest to improve health outcomes.
Regarding the benchmark underperformance that is most widespread throughout the organization, the inadequate number of beds deserves a lot of attention. It is more of an administrative problem than a policy issue. A low number of beds implies that SUD patients cannot be released for admission and pave the way to screen other patients since they must stay in beds. Accordingly, this problem becomes the most impacting on patients and staff. To patients, the waiting time increases, risking their health further. It can be a source of demotivation to serve for nurses since the number waiting to be served is proportional to the waiting time.
Impacts of Underperformance on the Community
Ethically and professionally, health care organizations are mandated to provide excellent quality care and prioritize patient safety. High waiting time is a disservice to the community served and violates the principle of health care equity. According to Reese (2019), high waiting time in emergency rooms affects the health of millions of Americans yearly, and many usually leave health care facilities without attendance or partially attended. This disservice is also a leading cause of more extended hospital stays since the chances of health complications as patients wait to be served are high. High waiting time increases medical errors and patients’ death rates (Martinez et al., 2019). As a result, the community health is affected adversely, and attention to enhance performance is necessary.
Opportunity to Improve the Overall Quality of Care
CareM Medical Center can prevent risking patients’ lives by addressing the issue of high waiting time. In the current setup, the best way to lower waiting is to ensure that the ER has adequate beds to accommodate more patients as they receive SUD services. If possible, administrative interventions to increase the number of registered nurses to match the State’s threshold are crucial. Doing so will ensure that nurses are more empowered and supported to serve patients irrespective of the increasing numbers.
Ethical Action
Health care facilities operate as they follow administrative and legal policies. Internal and external policies guide them, and violation of the set policies has severe legal and ethical implications. In the current setup at CareM Medical Center, a huge portion of the patients visiting the emergency room are referred by outside physicians. They (outside physicians) refer many patients to the ER since they are not professionally mandated to provide complete SUD care. Outside physicians lack admitting privileges. They cannot admit a patient directly, implying that almost all the medical center’s admissions come through the ER. Accordingly, it is crucial to increase outside physicians admitting privileges to reduce unnecessary visits to the ER. Visits to the ER should be reserved for critically ill patients.
Responsible Stakeholders
Stakeholders play a critical role in the running of health care facilities. Their decisions have huge implications on how an organization functions and policies made every day. To improve waiting time at CareM Medical Center, the best-positioned group of stakeholders is the quality service board. The board consists of the facility’s administration, and patients, community, and legal representatives. Its work is quality assurance and searching for resources to enhance performance, particularly donation. The board is also responsible for policy formulation to ensure that services meet the expected quality standards.
Importance of Action
Always, health care facilities should be concerned when their services fail to meet the desired benchmark. Underperformance has huge implications on the quality of care and patient safety, and interventions to match the legally and ethically set standards are imperative. When facilitated to serve, nurses will also be motivated to offer their services, and the chances of burnout will reduce. CareM Medical Center will also be safe from legal violations. Such interventions will enable the facility to continue serving the community diligently as its mission statement envisages.
Supporting Improved Benchmark Performance
The stakeholder group can apply several strategies to support improved benchmark performance. It can improve interprofessional collaboration between outside physicians and the ER nurses to prevent unnecessary ER visits. When outside physicians and ER nurses collaborate to assess a patient, physicians would be more empowered to admit patients directly without an ER visit. However, such a change in the work structure needs some policy formulations to advance the role of outside physicians that is somewhat limited.
In conclusion, quality health delivery is challenging when a health care facility is underperforming in some areas. Dashboard metrics are reliable reference points to determine whether a health care facility performs as the local, state, or federal laws obligate. CareM Medical Center’s close assessment shows that it needs to improve on nurse: patient ratio, average waiting hours, and the number of beds in the ER. Policy and administrative interventions to change the current state include giving outside physicians more admission privileges, increasing the number of nurses, and looking for financial resources to buy more beds in the emergency room.
References
Dembosky, A. (2020, Dec 30). California is overriding its limits on nurse workloads as COVID-19 surges. npr. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/30/950177471/california-is-overriding-its-limits-on-nurse-workloads-as-covid-19-surges
Gutsan, E., Patton, J., Willis, W. K., & PH, C. D. (2018). Burnout syndrome and nurse-to-patient ratio in the workplace. Marshall University. https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1196&context=mgmt_faculty
Hawk, K., & D’Onofrio, G. (2018). Emergency department screening and interventions for substance use disorders. Addiction science & clinical practice, 13(1), 1-6. https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13722-018-0117-1
Martinez, D. A., Zhang, H., Bastias, M., Feijoo, F., Hinson, J., Martinez, R., … & Prieto, D. (2019). Prolonged wait time is associated with increased mortality for Chilean waiting list patients with non-prioritized conditions. BMC public health, 19(1), 1-11. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-6526-6
Reese, P. (2019, May 17). As ER wait times grow, more patients leave against medical advice. KHN. https://khn.org/news/as-er-wait-times-grow-more-patients-leave-against-medical-advice/
To the Director of Mercy Hospital
After reviewing the data on diabetes at Mercy hospital, various insights have been developed from data, especially choices that the clinic needs to focus on to meet the desired quality. The following information includes my individual evaluation data showing various areas that Mercy Hospital needs to focus on to meet the desired quality. Again, it contains the proposal of specific areas and targets for improvement.
Evaluation of Dashboard Metrics
The dashboard on people with diabetes from Mercy hospital shows various concerns that define various areas in which they have been underperforming in the past. Despite the general quality of care registered by the hospital, various areas need to be addressed. The first concern is the declining rates of HgbA1c. The second concern is the declining low foot exam rates. These tests are important as they are significant in identifying potential complications related to diabetes (Anderzén et al., 2020). In the last quarter of 2019, the clinic recorded a 70%-foot exam; in the last quarter of 2020, the clinic recorded 62%. This data shows a significant decline in foot exam rates. The higher percentages would be important for the clinic as they aid in the early identification of diabetic-related complications.
On the other hand, the number of eye exams recorded at the clinic has been fluctuating over the last two years. The rate is over six times what was recorded in 2018. Again, it is about four to nine times more than the foot rate and HgbA1c exams. The eye exam is better according to the recorded data at the clinic (Anderzén et al., 2020). However, the interest of the clinic concerning diabetes does not take data on eye rate exams as an important area of concern. Therefore, there is no significant data on eye rate on the exam that can allow one to connect its effect on diabetes rate at the clinic.
Another piece of information that ought to be provided in the dashboard was on new diabetes patients. The provided benchmark has no information on the total number of new patients recorded in the previous quarters. Therefore, the current number of new patients cannot be used in discussing the issue of diabetes effectively at the clinic (Anderzén et al., 2020). Again, looking at the data, the information provided on new patient statements is similar to those of patients aged 20 and younger. Therefore, for the dashboard to label it as one of the biggest areas is of concern.
Analysis of Challenges in Achieving Acceptable Performance
Mercy Hospital has been facing various challenges in its role to meet the optimum patient outcome. The first issue within the diabetic unit is the low staff throughout the year. The increased quality of services at Mercy clinic has been inviting many patients. However, the employment of clinical officers to meet the expected rise in patients has been low, creating a shortage of staff (Winter et al., 2020). This issue is problematic because implementing better evidence-based strategies designed to attend to diabetic patients would not be successful. The management of the clinic is cautious because of the financial impact that comes with the addition of staff. However, as the dashboard data shows, more staff are needed to meet the rising demand for patients at the clinic. Failure to solve the problem of understaffing would affect the current quality of service delivery, which would further send patients to other clinics.
The second problem is the financial challenge of equipping patients with modern technology aimed at meeting the effective management of diabetes. Currently, patients cater for the cost, such as insulin pumps provided by other organizations. If the clinic could procure these tools at a lower price and introduce them to diabetic patients after training on their use would improve the safety of diabetic patients (Zhang et al., 2022). The current finances at the clinic do not allow it to apply better interventions that can significantly reduce the severity of diabetes on the increasing number of patients.
Specific Target for Improvement
The data on the dashboard on diabetes at Mercy clinic shows a better performance in dealing with diabetes. The success of the clinic is evident in the awards it has been able to earn over the last years (Zhang et al., 2022). For instance, the highest safe surgery rating by the consumer advocacy magazine is a sign that the clinic has been delivering high-quality surgeries over the last few years. However, despite the noted areas of success, there are various areas that the clinic would need to improve to meet the optimal patient outcome.
One of the areas is the process of implementing new interventions related to solving diabetes. Some of the evidence-based programs have failed the implementation process because of the poor plan of the entire evaluation and implementation process. Involving stakeholders in the implementation process has a significant role in bringing all people on board. The healthcare workers have the role of ensuring the success of a practice (Zhang et al., 2022). On the other hand, can decide to fail the implementation process, however effective it would be on patients. Therefore, Mercy Medical Center needs to involve all the stakeholders in implementing a new practice that would positively affect the needed patient outcome. This recommendation is effective in meeting patient safety and the ethical care standpoint. The increasing number of diabetic patients requires more intensive evidence-based practices that can meet the increasing healthcare demands of diabetic patients.
Ethical and Sustainable Recommended Actions
To address the issue of poor implementation of evidence-based practices for diabetic patients, an effective training program should be given to all nurses on any proposed evidence-based program. The proposed practices need to focus on self-care management among diabetic patients to improve their general safety (Al-Maskari & Patterson, 2018). The training of nurses on such an implementation process brings all the healthcare professionals on board. Besides, they are able to understand the common goal of these practices on patient safety.
Mercy clinic should involve all stakeholders in the implementation of any new change at the clinic. This process would allow each department to rally its employees behind the change and meet the desired outcome of the proposed changes (Al-Maskari & Patterson, 2018). From the clinic data, the decreasing foot exam rates is a sign that many patients are not opting for these examinations, making it hard for the clinic to identify the diabetic infection early. The inclusion of all stakeholders on issues related to the diabetic unit and the desired changes would increase patient education on the need to undertake foot and HgbA1c tests to understand their health as far as a diabetic is concerned.
This report does not address the staff shortage issue as one of the main factors affecting the delivery of services at the clinic (Duffy et al., 2020). However, formalizing training and educating new staff on diabetic-related issues would be important in mitigating the shortage. Also, the clinic can organize funds to hire more professionals.
Conclusion
Thank you for your time. I hope this report addressed all your questions before sending it to me. If I need more clarification on my analysis, I will be willing to meet and discuss the report with you. I would be ready to help with any direction that will aid the organization meets its desired patient outcome.
References
Al-Maskari, M. A., & Patterson, B. J. (2018). Attitudes towards and perceptions regarding the implementation of evidence-based practice among Omani nurses. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, 18(3), e344. https://doi.org/10.18295%2Fsqumj.2018.18.03.013
Anderzén, J., Hermann, J. M., Samuelsson, U., Charalampopoulos, D., Svensson, J., Skrivarhaug, T., … & Warner, J. T. (2020). International benchmarking in type 1 diabetes: Large difference in childhood HbA1c between eight high‐income countries but similar rise during adolescence—A quality registry study. Pediatric Diabetes, 21(4), 621-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13014
Duffy, J. R., Culp, S., Marchessault, P., & Olmsted, K. (2020). Longitudinal comparison of hospital nurses’ values, knowledge, and implementation of evidence-based practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 51(5), 209-214. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20200415-05
Winter, V., Schreyögg, J., & Thiel, A. (2020). Hospital staff shortages: environmental and organizational determinants and implications for patient satisfaction. Health Policy, 124(4), 380-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.01.001
Zhang, Y., Bullard, K. M., Imperatore, G., Holliday, C. S., & Benoit, S. R. (2022). Proportions and trends of adult hospitalizations with Diabetes, United States, 2000–2018. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 187, 109862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109862