Assessment of Dashboard Metrics Relating to Health Policies NURS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Assessment of Dashboard Metrics Relating to Health Policies
NURS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
The Dashboard’s specified metric was used to assess data on government-mandated obligations. An in-depth analysis of the dashboard results in identifying Mercy Health Center areas in need of improvement. The Dashboard metric was created to provide light on a hospital’s most important performance indicator and its capacity to achieve or exceed local and federal standards. It aids the hospital’s management and administration keep track of the institution’s progress and coping with its financial issues. Using a dashboard developed by Mercy Medical Center, a range of deficiencies and limitations may be discovered (Yang et al., 2021). Analyzing dashboard data may summarize actions and processes that need to be implemented to increase overall compliance. The benchmarks offered by AHRQ say that it is helpful to compare actual data to models. The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) standards adhere to the four clinical principles and have been implemented throughout the country. This says that the usage of benchmarks indicates that the measures will allow for the preservation of quality, the promotion of customer satisfaction, and the protection of patients. All newly admitted patients at Mercy Medical Center must be provided with medication reconciliation services in accordance with the same national standard.
Both HgbA1c testing and foot examinations are critical concerns that must be addressed. The Mercy Health Center has seen a boost in Rhea tests that can be conducted, but there is still space for growth. As seen by projected increases in both the facility’s HgbA1c and foot inspection compliance rates from 2020 to 2019, Mercy Health Center seems to be improving its capacity to fulfil federal requirements. Despite this, more people are required to participate in improving public health and encouraging a fit lifestyle (Walker et al., 2021). A total of 30 A1C tests, 50-foot assessments, and 28 eye examinations have been done. The compliance rates of 27%, 29%, and 32% may be calculated by dividing the total number of patients over 40 by the total number of tests. Improvement in healthcare quality and adherence with the AHRQ’s proposed national criteria may be noticed when the numbers are compared.
Get the other by clicking on the given link like NURS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal
As a disease that affects individuals worldwide, diabetes has exploded in prevalence in both developed and developing nations. The American Diabetes Association has recommended the HgbA1c test to identify high blood glucose levels and recreate a patient’s previous diabetes development history. Patients will likely be subjected to unneeded and inefficient health measures if early diagnostic tests are not done. According to federal and state health standards, the HgbA1c test is the gold standard for detecting diabetes and tracking its progression (Walker et al., 2021). For reducing the number of individuals who acquire diabetes and minimize the health consequences of the condition, it is necessary to ensure that testing is both speedy and of good quality. In preventing complications and issues, lower-foot examinations have a similar risk. Patients with diabetes must undergo regular foot inspections to prevent infections, nerve damage, and poor blood flow. American Diabetes Association study shows that 50 percent of people with diabetes suffer from sensory loss, even if they don’t show any symptoms that might lead to further harm.
As a consequence, an in-depth evaluation is required. National guidelines urge that diabetes patients get their feet checked at least once a year. Consequently, the present evaluation has concluded that the healthcare facility’s ability to conduct testing has to be enhanced to deliver better care. For example, there is a lack of statistics and unstructured data on the Dashboard, as well as an evaluation method that is inconsistent and missing data. For example, in the case of patients with diabetes, there have been no recent modifications. Consequently, the sheer number of persons seeking treatment should not be cause for alarm at this time. Because of these inadequacies, the integrity of conclusions drawn from the interpretation of the available data is called into doubt.