Health care quality is a nationally recognized topic that is addressed through public policies, licensure, and accreditation standards for health care professionals and organizations. Throughout history, numerous organizations have been involved in developing health care quality and safety initiatives.
The Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed quality and safety indicators for various health care systems. These indicators seek to establish accountability for health care organizations through a reporting system, which is available to the public. For this Discussion, explore various accrediting organizations and specific measures that pertain to quality. In your research on accrediting organizations, consider how these quality measures affect quality outcomes, support ethical principles, and influence the delivery of clinical services.
To prepare:

• Select one specific quality indicator      from the Week 2 Discussion and compare it with those outlined in this      week’s Learning Resources (In week 2 discussion, I spoke about nosocomial      infections and pain management as quality indicators).
• Review the accrediting body standards      that pertain to your organization focusing on those standards that require      your organization to define its quality management program.
• Consider regulatory requirements at      the state or national level that affect quality outcomes in your      organization.
• Ask yourself: How do the Centers for      Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) restricted reimbursements affect      quality management or improvement efforts at my organization? How do these      standards and regulations influence or support ethical principles and      influence patient care and nursing practice?

By tomorrow Wednesday 12/13/17, write a minimum of 550 words in APA format with at least 3 references from the list below that addresses the level one & two headings as numbered and lettered below:

post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

1) Choose any measurement and explain the extent to which your chosen measure is affected by CMS driven incentives and disincentives.

2) From a systems perspective, discuss how this measure affects:

a. Quality outcomes

b. Supports ethical principles

c. Influences patient care and nursing practice.

Required Readings

Joshi, M.S., Ransom, E.R., Nash, D.B., & Ransom, S.B., (Eds.). (2014). The Healthcare Quality Book, 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.

Chapter 5: “Data Collection”

Chapter 6: “Statistical Tools for QI”

Park, J., Konetzka, R. T., & Werner, R. M. (2011). Performing well on nursing home report cards: Does it pay off? Health Services Research, 46(2), 531–554. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01197.x

The study in this article evaluates whether or not nursing homes benefit from improvements in quality measures. Four financial outcomes are measured before and after the improvements are enacted. The study shows that the nursing homes that improved quality measures benefitted financially.

Suchy, K. (2010). A lack of standardization: The basis for the ethical issues surrounding quality and performance reports. Journal of Healthcare Management, 55(4), 241–251.

Because performance reports are easily found online, this article supports creating ethical guidelines for the performance reports of the health care industry. It compares nearly ten different organizations that provide performance reporting, and then it proposes an ethical framework and principles for public quality reporting.

Wachter, R. M., & Pronovost, P. J. (2009). Balancing “no blame” with accountability in patient safety. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(14), 1401–1406.

This article addresses the issue of individual accountability in health care organizations. It suggests moving from a culture within health care that does not place blame on individuals to a culture where individuals become more accountable.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (n.d.). Quality initiatives: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.cms.gov/QualityInitiativesGenInfo/

Created by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, this website overviews quality initiatives that affect the health care industry. It also provides information and downloadable PDFs on the Post-Acute Care Reform Plan and Development of Quality Indicators for Impatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRF).

Required Media

Video: Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011). Organizational and systems leadership for quality improvement: External quality improvement. Baltimore: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 10 minutes.

The presenters in this video discuss various external organizations involved in quality, and examine the enforcement of standards by governmental agencies versus voluntary organizations. This program also addresses the publication of quality information and why organizations should do their own reporting in addition to mandated reporting. Licensing, credentialing, and certification are discussed as they relate to the social compact that health care providers have for quality and safety.

Relying solely on the classic features of a disease may be misleading. That’s because the clinical presentation of a disease often varies: the symptoms and signs of many conditions are non-specific initially and may require hours, days, or even months to develop.

Generating a differential diagnosis; that is, developing a list of the possible conditions that might produce a patient’s symptoms and signs — is an important part of clinical reasoning. It enables appropriate testing to rule out possibilities and confirm a final diagnosis.

This case portrays a poor patient outcome after a misdiagnosis.

Case scenario

A previously healthy 35-year-old lawyer presents to a primary care office with a chief complaint of chest pain and a non-productive cough. The pain started suddenly 2 hours prior to coming to the office while the patient was sitting at his desk. The patient describes the pain as sharp in nature, constantly present but made worse with inspiration and movement, and with radiation to the base of the neck. His blood pressure in the right arm and other vital signs are normal.

On physical examination the only findings of note are chest wall tenderness and a faint cardiac murmur. The ECG in the office is normal. The patient is observed for an hour in the office and assessed. He is diagnosed with viral pleurisy and sent home on non-steroidal analgesics.

The following day the patient collapses at home and cannot be resuscitated by the paramedic service. An autopsy reveals a Type 1 aortic dissection with pericardial tamponade.

Written Assignment:

Developing a list of possible conditions that might produce a patient’s symptoms and signs is an important part of clinical reasoning.

As an NP in primary care what would you have done differently?

Discuss the importance of creating a list of differentials for this patient. How could it have changed this outcome?

If a serious diagnosis comes to mind based on a patient’s symptoms:

Ask yourself; Have you considered the likelihood of it and whether it needs to be ruled out by testing or referral?

Because many serious disorders are challenging to diagnose, have you considered ruling out the worst case scenario?

Ask yourself: Do you have sufficient understanding of the clinical presentation to offer an opinion on the diagnosis?

What other diagnosis could it be? How might the treatment to date have altered the patient outcome?

What other diagnostic and laboratory or imaging was needed in order to make a complete differential list?

What support tools would you consider using in helping to create a differential diagnosis list?

Are you familiar with the current clinical practice guidelines for the investigation of a suspected condition such as chest pain?