Categories
Uncategorized

Evaluate Factors That Influence Quality, Safe, Patient-Centered Care. Analyze Changes In Technology And Their Effect On Quality Patient Care.

Quality Factors in Healthcare: Patient-Centered Care

Introduction 

            Quality in healthcare can be defined as delivering the attention or instead of the care every patient requires, in a reasonably priced, safe, real way. This can also be described as involving and connecting the patient, in that he/she takes possession in precautionary care as well as in the management of detected disorders. For this to be accomplished, every professional within the healthcare system is entitled to ensure that safety, effectiveness, well-timed, well-organized, unbiased, as well as people-centered, is observed (Armstrong, S. & Arterburn, D. 2013). They are also providing ideal management that reduces dangers and risks to all patients, as well as escaping avoidable harms and minimizing medical inaccuracies. Nevertheless, various factors influence quality, safe, and patient-centered care both positively and negatively.

Technology 

            Ordinary people consider that technology will advance health care competence, quality, safety, as well as rates. Technology inpatient care has become progressively complex, changing the way; for instance, nursing care is intellectualized and offered (Armstrong, S. & Arterburn, D. 2013). Before wide-ranging use of technology, medical professionals depended deeply on their five senses, that is, the eyes, hands, nose, and ears for observation of a patient’s progress as well as to identify changes. Later, the medical professionals’ unassisted senses were substituted with technology intended to determine physical alterations, the disorders affecting the patients. For instance, think through the case of monitoring the pulse rate with the use of pulse oxymetry.        Prior to the widespread application of the pulse oxymetry, nurses depended on delicate changes in cerebral status as well as skin color to identify oxygen saturation in the early stages; besides, they used arterial blood gasses to check patients’ worries (Black, B., et al. 2011).        Nowadays, pulse oxymetry permits nurses to detect reduced oxygenation before the appearance of clinical symptoms, and therefore more quickly diagnose and treat or manage the underlying causes (Armstrong, S. & Arterburn, D. 2013). 

            Whereas technology can advance health care, it is not without risks. Nurses, together with other health care providers, can be so attentive on data from systems or rather the computers, for instance, that they miss identifying potentially significant delicate alterations in clinical status.        Complications may arise based on the absolute volume of new devices, the intricacy of the devices, the weak crossing point between multiple technologies at the bedside, and the random outline of new devices at the bedside (Berman, A. & McCabe, P. 2012).

Roles of communication, collaboration, and shared decision making

            Shared decision making is a two-way process through which the healthcare provider and patient get to a conclusion that is equally pleasant to both of them and knowledgeable by the patient’s standards and first choices. A shared proficiency is essential to improve a patient-centered strategy of care, with the patient as the skilled in his or her standards and first choices.         Also, this can be defined as a process that characterizes a reaction towards, and acceptance of, patient’s rights, to be conversant with potential healthcare interferences as well as to decide on them (Berman, A. & McCabe, P. 2012).

            From the healthcare provider’s viewpoint, shared decision making is an excellent way of disclosing to patients, for instance, the certainty that results in treatment are not definite. Shared decision making attracts thoughtfulness to the significance of communication as well as information sharing (Black, B. et al. 2011). The tasks for the healthcare provider are to reduce patients’ misinterpretation and mix-up of threats or significance of treatment as well as to avoid imposing his or her treatment preferences onto the patient (Black, B. et al. 2011).

            To meet the collaborative objective, the aim of all medical and healthcare professionals should be similar: to provide patients with the best care possible. This is easier to achieve with interprofessional collaboration. Instead of having individuals take turns caring for them, patients have a team on their side from the start, working together to provide care that has lasting results. 

            Interprofessional collaboration starts with learning the skills (Black, B., et al. 2011). When medical and healthcare students receive training on how to work effectively as a team across disciplines, they are primed to collaborate this way in the workplace. Consider options on how to give one’s future medical professionals the collaborative training they need to care for patients as members (Berman, A. & McCabe, P. 2012).

            While working in collaboration, health facilities and health insurance corporations can investigate clinical claims and data to categorize patients who are at a high-risk and those suffering from chronic conditions. Practical phases can be engaged to assist those individuals to live healthily and reduce the number of hospital admissions. Statistics can file when appropriate medical interventions are to be followed and inspires the patient’s submission. Evaluating claims documents for prescribed medication compliance is an excellent example of this (Vander, A. 2010).

            In conclusion, we can say that effective practices within the hospital ought not to lead to emphasis only on technological setup problems, but similarly on the human aspect. As discussed above in this document, honest communication boosts collaboration as well as aids in avoiding faults (Black, B., et al. 2011). It is significant for health care societies to evaluate potential systems for poor communication as well as be thorough about presenting programs as well as openings to aid adoptive team collaboration. Through tackling this subject, health care societies have a chance to improve their clinical results significantly.

References

Armstrong, S. & Arterburn, D. (2013). Creating a culture to promote shared decision making at     Group Health.

Berman, A. & McCabe, P. (2012). Living life in my own way and dying that way as well. Health Affairs. 31(4). Pp.871–874

Black, B., Herr, K., et al. (2011). The relationships among pain, non-pain symptoms, and quality   of life measures in older adults with cancer receiving hospice care. 12(6): Pp.880–889

Berkhof, M., Van Rijssen, H., Schellart, A., Anema, J., & Vander, A. (2010) Effective training       strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: An overview of systematic      reviews. Patient Education and Counseling. Pp. 152–162.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *