Proposed Measurement Plan for Implementation

Proposed Measurement Plan for Implementation

The T1D Exchange Quality Improvement (T1DX-QI) Collaborative Program, based on available evidence, shows that it has the potential to support the delivery of quality, effective, and equitable T1D care (Ginnard et al., 2021). This article discusses the implementation process of the T1DX-QI Collaborative Program within the Diabetes Care Clinic based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) framework and includes a discussion on how the results of the project will be measured.

T1DX-QI Collaborative Program Implementation Process

The T1DX-QI collaborative is a data-driven continuous quality improvement program involving a collaboration of over 50 clinics aimed at improving T1D outcomes, including condition management and quality of life among T1D patients (Ginnard et al., 2021). This makes it more challenging to be fully implemented within the allotted 30 hours for the QI project. The program will be implemented as a pilot initiative based on the PDCA model. The outcomes of the T1DX-QI collaborative best practices will be identified and implemented gradually over time across the entire clinic.

The first step of the implementation process, as per the PDCA model, is to plan for the T1DX-QI Collaborative Program. This involves activities such as assessing the diabetes clinic’s resources, current T1D care practices, and current patient experiences. The set goal is to improve glycemic control, adherence to medication, and quality of life for children with T1D after implementing the pilot T1DX-QI Collaborative Program. A small multidisciplinary team will be set up, and a patient sample of five individuals will be selected for the program; five more individuals will be selected, but they will remain on the normal T1D care as a control group. The team members, including the patients, will be trained on the T1DX-QI Collaborative Program and how to utilize it during the delivery of T1D care.

The second step, the “Do” stage, involves the actual implementation of the pilot T1DX-QI Collaborative Program within the Diabetes Care Clinic. All TID care processes, including medication, use of technology, and patient education programs, will be standardized as per the provisions of the T1DX-QI Collaborative. The patients will be monitored, and data related to the project’s objectives will be collected during the implementation of the program.

The third step, the “Check” stage, will involve regularly checking the progress achieved with the implementation of the pilot T1DX-QI Collaborative and analysis of the collected data from both the test patients and control group. The data will then be benchmarked against the set goals, data, and measures provided by the T1DX-QI Collaborative Program. This will help identify best practices for T1D care and areas and opportunities for further improvement.

The final step is to act as per the outcomes of the implemented pilot T1DX-QI Collaborative Program. The best outcomes related to the best practices of the T1DX-QI Collaborative will be noted from the analyzed data and utilized to inform decisions that modify and improve on the current practices and introduce new evidence-based practices within the clinic to improve the quality of T1D care.

Measures of the Results of the QI Project

The measures for the results of the T1DX-QI Collaborative project to determine the effectiveness of the program will focus on metrics related to clinical outcomes, the process of implementation, patient metrics, resource utilization metrics, and care quality improvement metrics. To begin with, clinical metrics will include changes in HbA1c levels, the effectiveness of glycemic control, and adherence to T1D management protocols. Next, the patient outcome measures will include patient-reported levels of satisfaction, patient experiences with the T1DX-QI Collaborative Program, and perceived improvements in quality of care compared to usual T1D care received previously. Further, the resource utilization measures will include time spent with a patient, efficiency of delivery of collaborative T1D care, and savings in costs related to T1D management. Lastly, care quality improvement measures will include the level of staff commitment to evidence-based practices, participation in QI projects, and perceived importance of evidence in clinical practice.

References

Ginnard, O. Z. B., Todd Alonso, G., Corathers, S. D., Demeterco-Berggren, C., Golden, L. H., Miyazaki, B. T., Nelson, G., Ospelt, E., Ebekozien, O., Lee, J. M., Obrynba, K. S., & DeSalvo, D. J. (2021). Quality improvement in diabetes care: A review of initiatives and outcomes in the T1D exchange quality improvement collaborative. Clinical Diabetes: A Publication of the American Diabetes Association, 39(3), 256. https://doi.org/10.2337/CD21-0029

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

This week, you will submit your two- to three-page paper on how you will implement your project and measure the results.

Additional details for each project can be viewed in the Course Projects Module

See rubric below for grading details.

Rubric
NUR445 Week 10 Assignment Grading Rubric
NUR445 Week 10 Assignment Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Discuss the implementation process: Who is involved in the process, who approves the change, how the change will be communicated, and the step-by-step process.

Proposed Measurement Plan for Implementation

20 to >15.0 pts
Excellent
Paper fully discusses the implementation process. Includes all the components listed.
15 to >10.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
Paper somewhat discusses the implementation process. Missing one of the components listed.
10 to >3.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
Paper minimally discusses the implementation process. Missing two of the components listed.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paper does not appropriately discuss the implementation process. Missing three of the components listed.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Discuss how the results will be measured: how data is collected, the validity and reliability of the tool, and what to do with the results.
20 to >15.0 pts
Full Marks
Paper fully discusses how the results will be measured. Includes all the components listed.
15 to >10.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
Paper somewhat discusses how the results will be measured. Missing one of the components listed.
10 to >3.0 pts
Needs Significantly Improvement
Paper minimally discusses how the results will be measured. Missing one of the components listed.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paper does not appropriately discuss how the results will be measured. Missing all three of the components listed.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Elements of the Paper
10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
The overall purpose of the paper is clear; the paper expresses the main idea and major points of the writing prompt. Word choice is consistently concise.
9 to >6.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
The purpose is generally clear; the paper expresses the main idea and most major points of the writing prompt. Word choice is fairly concise.
6 to >3.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
The purpose is unclear. The paper does not accurately or sufficiently express the main idea or most major points of the writing prompt. Word choice is vague or repetitive
3 to >0 pts
Poor
The purpose is unclear. The paper does not convey the main idea or major points of the writing prompt. Word choice is confusing or misleading. OR assignment was not submitted.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Mechanics and Grammar
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
No errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation, or spelling.
4 to >2.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
Minor errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling that interfere with reading/ understanding.
2 to >1.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
Some errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling that interfere with reading/ understanding.
1 to >0 pts
Poor
Numerous errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling that interfere with reading/ understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Mechanics and Grammar
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
No errors in APA format, in-text citation(s), or reference page.
4 to >2.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
Minor errors in APA format, in-text citation(s), or reference page.
2 to >1.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
Some errors in APA format, in-text citation(s), or reference page.
1 to >0 pts
Poor
Numerous errors in APA format, in-text citation(s), or reference page.
5 pts
Total Points: 60