Annotated Bibliography – The Impact of Legal and Regulatory Requirements on Health Care

Annotated Bibliography – The Impact of Legal and Regulatory Requirements on Health Care

Banerjee, S., Paasche-Orlow, M. K., McCormick, D., Lin, M.-Y., & Hanchate, A. D. (2021). Association between Medicare’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and readmission rates across hospitals by medicare bed share. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06253-2

This article by Banerjee et al. (2021) looked into the relationship between readmission rates in US hospitals and Medicare’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). Based on their Medicare bed share tertiles, 1904 hospitals made up the research sample. The purpose of the study was to investigate various options to lower readmission rates as well as assess the effect of HRRP sanctions on readmission rates. The study’s broad application to the U.S. healthcare system is reflected in its geographical coverage, which includes hospitals across the country. A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences method was used in the research design to compare 30-day readmission rates in hospitals with varying Medicare bed shares before and after the HRRP. The diverse characteristics of hospitals, such as type, size, and location, along with patient demographics and baseline readmission rates, were considered in the sample.

The study’s outcome was fascinating. Against predictions, readmission rates in all of the hospitals under study did not significantly alter as a result of HRRP fines. This finding challenged the effectiveness of the current regulatory approach and calls for a reevaluation of the HRRP. The legal and regulatory impact stemming from this research is notably significant, prompting a critical reevaluation of the efficacy and fairness of punitive measures within healthcare policies. The study raises fundamental questions about the utility of penalties in achieving desired healthcare outcomes and the fairness of such punitive approaches. As such, the implications extend to the broader healthcare regulatory landscape, particularly concerning initiatives like the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).

The research strongly suggests a need for substantial policy adjustments guided by a more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing readmission rates. Importantly, it emphasizes the imperative to align regulatory efforts with the overarching goal of improving patient outcomes, urging policymakers to move beyond a reliance solely on punitive measures. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as a central regulatory authority, is encouraged to explore alternative strategies that prioritize collaboration with hospitals. This shift towards a more collaborative approach underscores the importance of fostering partnerships between regulatory bodies and healthcare institutions. Policymakers and healthcare managers are urged to consider the study’s findings as pivotal input for shaping future regulations related to readmission reduction programs. By integrating these insights, regulatory frameworks can evolve to be more patient-centric, fostering a healthcare environment that prioritizes collaborative strategies over punitive measures and ultimately contributes to the enhancement of overall patient care and outcomes.

Hussein, M., Pavlova, M., Ghalwash, M., & Groot, W. (2021). The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07097-6

Hussein et al. (2021) carried out a thorough assessment of the literature in order to determine how hospital accreditation affects healthcare quality. The study included data from 76 empirical investigations that examined different facets of hospital environments, medical staff, patient outcomes, and hospital performance. The goal of the review was to present a thorough knowledge of how hospital accreditation affects many aspects of healthcare quality. The study’s broad geographic breadth reflected the many settings in which hospital accreditation is practiced. A thorough evaluation of the peer-reviewed quantitative literature covering the previous 20 years was part of the research design. This all-encompassing strategy made it possible to thoroughly examine the effects of certification across a number of topics. The results of the research demonstrated a number of advantages of accreditation compliance. Hospitals that followed accrediting criteria showed gains in patient length of stay, efficiency, process-related performance metrics, and safety culture. On the other hand, the study also found conflicting findings about death rates and illnesses linked to healthcare.

The study’s legal and regulatory ramifications highlight the need for certification as a key approach to enhancing quality in the healthcare system. It is recommended that policymakers take proactive steps to encourage and update accrediting procedures in order to acknowledge and capitalize on these benefits. By doing so, they can foster an environment that not only encourages healthcare organizations to pursue accreditation but also ensures that the processes themselves continually contribute to enhanced overall healthcare quality. The study advocates for a nuanced and balanced approach to accreditation, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging its positive contributions while simultaneously addressing areas where conclusive evidence may be lacking. Policymakers can utilize these insights to tailor regulatory frameworks that promote continuous improvement in healthcare quality through accreditation initiatives. Furthermore, the collaborative efforts of healthcare organizations and regulatory bodies are pivotal in refining accreditation standards. By aligning these standards with contemporary healthcare challenges, stakeholders can actively contribute to meaningful advancements in quality improvement. This approach reflects a commitment to adaptability and responsiveness within regulatory frameworks, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes and a higher standard of care across the healthcare landscape.

Pogorzelska-Maziarz, M., de Cordova, P. B., Herzig, C. T. A., Dick, A., Reagan, J., & Stone, P. W. (2019). Perceived impact of state-mandated reporting on infection prevention and control departments. American Journal of Infection Control, 47(2), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.08.012

This research by Pogorzelska-Maziarz et al. (2019) examined how infection prevention and control (IPC) departments at non-VA hospitals across the United States felt about the reporting requirements imposed by the state. 73% of the study’s respondents were based in states with reporting requirements for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), and the study polled 1036 IPC departments that were participating in the National Healthcare Safety Network. The study included a national geographic area, with a focus on states that have and do not have HAI reporting requirements. A web-based survey was utilized in the study design, and statistical tests such as the χ2, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Student’s t-tests were performed. To find shifts in the perception of IPC departments’ time, influence, visibility, and resources, multinomial logistic regression was employed.

The study’s findings showed that respondents in jurisdictions with legislation requiring the reporting of health information attributed harm to IPC departments. These consequences included less visibility and less time for daily tasks. The research on the perceived impact of state-mandated reporting has shown legal and regulatory ramifications that highlight the existence of unintended consequences in the healthcare system. The findings emphasize the necessity for policymakers to critically evaluate potential negative repercussions associated with such regulations. Striking a delicate balance between reporting requirements and the practical demands on healthcare providers is imperative. This entails acknowledging the complexity of healthcare settings and ensuring that regulatory measures are not inadvertently burdensome to frontline healthcare professionals.

Furthermore, the research suggests an ongoing need for the evaluation of resources required for compliance with reporting laws. Policymakers and regulatory bodies should engage in continuous assessments to understand the evolving challenges faced by Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) departments. Addressing these challenges is crucial for ensuring the effectiveness of reporting requirements while minimizing any undue burden on healthcare providers. The research advocates for a thoughtful approach in the design and implementation of reporting regulations, emphasizing the importance of positive contributions to infection prevention efforts without compromising the well-being of healthcare professionals on the front lines of patient care.

References

Banerjee, S., Paasche-Orlow, M. K., McCormick, D., Lin, M.-Y., & Hanchate, A. D. (2021). Association between Medicare’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and readmission rates across hospitals by medicare bed share. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06253-2

Hussein, M., Pavlova, M., Ghalwash, M., & Groot, W. (2021). The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07097-6

Pogorzelska-Maziarz, M., de Cordova, P. B., Herzig, C. T. A., Dick, A., Reagan, J., & Stone, P. W. (2019). Perceived impact of state-mandated reporting on infection prevention and control departments. American Journal of Infection Control, 47(2), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.08.012

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Accountability is important to the research process, particularly to health care research. Researchers must act with integrity and apply high standards of ethical behavior in their research. You must understand that your judgment and actions help shape research due to not only what you include but also what you omit from a study.

The Impact of Legal and Regulatory Requirements on Health Care

Effective research begins with reviewing the literature. In this annotated bibliography, you will demonstrate your skill in accountability as you evaluate the impact of legal and regulatory requirements on healthcare research and the delivery of healthcare.

Complete an annotated bibliography comprised of the 3 peer-reviewed articles you selected in the Week 1 assignment.

Prepare an annotated bibliography of the 3 peer-reviewed research articles you selected in the Week 1 assignment.
In your annotated bibliography:

In your own words, write a 150- to 200-word summary of each research article.

Explain the legal or regulatory impact of the research study described in each of the articles.

Format your citations and references according to APA guidelines.

Please use the peer reviews that I uploaded in the paper details