Risk Management

Risk Management

The fictional case selected is the case of a private healthcare facility in Alaska with significant quality compromises in its care provision process. The standards selected were medication management (MM); provisions of care, treatment, and service (PC); management of human resources (HR), surveillance, prevention and control of infection (IC), and improving organizational performance (PI).

The first standard is surveillance, prevention, and control of infections. The severity score for this standard in institutionalized care for psychiatric care is high. This is because patients in these care settings have complex healthcare demands and, therefore, require high-acuity care. Compromises in surveillance and disease prevention/control in these care settings can be detrimental to the residents of these care settings (Niedzwiecki et al., 2018). A performance indicator for this standard is patient follow-ups. Notably, patient follow-ups correlate with the standard of patient surveillance and disease control. Lack of or inadequate patient follow-ups is an indication of poor hospital surveillance. The performance rate of the hospital on this standard was poor, and their compliance rating was averaging the 80s range. This may be due to inadequate personnel to carry out outpatient surveillance. However, this can be corrected by encouraging the available personnel to actively surveil the available patients as a strategy to enhance quality and ensure disease control. Do you need urgent assignment help ? Get in touch with us at eminencepapers.com. We endeavor to provide you with excellent service.

Another standard is human resource management. This is a medium-risk standard. A performance indicator for this standard is employee satisfaction. HR is responsible for enhancing the welfare of all organizational employees. Employee dissatisfaction with services and operations often indicates poor HR management (Kabene et al., 2018). The performance rating of this hospital on this standard is poor, and the compliance ratings are in the 60s range. This may be due to improper working conditions, inadequate personnel, and lack of treatment equipment. Accordingly, this can be resolved by increasing the hospital workforce.

The third standard is medication management. The severity risk of this standard is high. It can be assessed by the number of adverse events attributable to medications and medication administrations. This hospital registered a moderate score informed by the low number of medication-related adverse events. Its compliance ratings were averaging the 90s range. This indicates that they were compliant with the provisions of medication management. This can further be improved by recruiting pharmacists to enhance medication management.

Another standard is care provision. Notably, this is a high-risk area in psychiatric management. The performance indicator is the average patient wait time. Long patient waiting time is an indication of poor service provision. The hospital performed poorly in this regard due to evidence of longer waiting times for the patients. The compliance rating to this standard was in the range of 60s. This can be corrected by recruiting more healthcare professionals, enhancing the infrastructural capacity, and acquiring diagnostic and treatment equipment.

The fifth standard was improving organizational performance. This is a medium risk and can be assessed by a bed or room turnover rate. Improving organizational performance will be indicated by a high bed turnover rate. This hospital performed poorly, as evidenced in longer hospital stays by the patients. The compliance rating was in the range of 70s. This can be corrected by increasing the workforce and acquiring treatment and diagnostic equipment.

References

Kabene, S., Orchard, C., Howard, J., Soriano, M., & Leduc, R. (2018). The importance of human resources management in health care: a global context. Human Resources for Health, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-4-20

Niedzwiecki, M., Sharma, P., Kanzaria, H., McConville, S., & Hsia, R. (2018). Factors Associated With Emergency Department Use by Patients With and Without Mental Health Diagnoses. JAMA Network Open, 1(6), e183528. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3528

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Risk management uses certain documents to track incidents. It will help you to become familiar with the kind of information that goes into these documents. This week, you will create and fill in a quality improvement chart for the high-risk area you selected in Week 1.

Design a chart to show the indicators, their measurements, and the expected and actual performance. Use the template to design your chart. Further, use 5 out of the 10 standards listed. Use the template below.
Select one of the fictional incidents you created last week. Describe the incident under Status.
For this incident, complete the Compliance section using fictitious data. The tracking of the indicators should correspond to the incident. That is, some failure of compliance may have led to the incident.
Develop a plan of correction to address the incident. Write a brief description under Plan of Correction.
Use the matrix below to design your quality improvement chart. Show all the indicators you selected in the chart.