Evaluation of Stress and Quality Management

December 9, 2022

Evaluation of Stress and Quality Management

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Evaluation of Stress and Quality Management

[Order Now]

Write a 175- to 265-word response to the following:

How are risk management and quality management used in health care?

What is the difference between them?

What are the similarities?

Why is it important for you to understand the differences and similarities?

How will this help you as you prepare to work in the health care industry?

Explain your answer.

DISCUSSION RESPONSES

While risk management focus on preventive harms to employees, patients, and protecting the facility other internal and financial assets such as reducing risks to lawsuits, worker’s compensation, unemployment, and other disasters like fire or flood, quality management focus on protecting the external assets which are their patients by lessening harmful risks to the minimum.

Similarly, they both share the goals of minimizing risks to the healthcare facility by overlooking the facility procedures and system processes to address those potential risks and harms. It is important to understand these similarities and differences between the two because as they are working hand in hand to provide a better system for safer environment, their specific goals and focuses are slightly prioritized.

Again, risk management focus more on general risks and internal goals for the healthcare facility with business risk models like Swiss Cheese Theory as system guidelines and reference for procedures and training development.

Quality management focus more on quality delivery outcome and patient’s satisfaction by following a separate standard guideline that is used by other healthcare facilities and accredited organizations such “health care must be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable” (Seelbach, C. (2021)). Understanding risk and quality management will prepare leadership to contribute better approach to each of their goals and accomplishments.

Risk and quality management are both used in healthcare to help in a variety of different areas.

Risk management focuses more on the legal and liabilities side of things. Risk management is the several different sets of standards and processes set in place to prevent risks and liability from occurring. While quality management focuses on the quality aspect of things. Quality management is designed to improve patient care and focuses on the outcomes that can and will occur.

Both risk and quality management have a similarity of holding the safety and quality of healthcare at high standards. Without these forms of managements, the health care industry wouldn’t be as structured or hold such quality of care.

Risks of any sort in healthcare are bound to happen- they are in inevitable however there are procedures that can be followed to the best of every health clinics ability to try to prevent risks from occurring. It is important that we as future health care managers or whatever we may be dipping our feet into, that we understand the importance of quality management and risk management as they both play to incredibly important roles in the success of a health care clinic.

[Order Now]

Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper about enterprise risk management (ERM) in which you:

Explain the difference between traditional and enterprise risk management.

Explain why enterprise risk management is a more effective approach for today’s organizations.

Explain key drivers of value-driven enterprise risk management.

Explain how these key drivers are applied within health care to drive enterprise risk management. Provide examples.

Evaluation of Stress and Quality Management

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.