Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores

Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores

Instructions/Descriptions

Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores

[Order Now]

Introduction (25%) Provide a brief synopsis of the meaning (not a description) of each Chapter and articles you read, in your own words that will apply to the case study presented.

2. Your Critique (50%)

Case Studies

Doctors, Nurses Overcome Workplace Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores in Phoenix ER

Doctors and nurses have worked together for centuries, saving and prolonging countless lives in healthcare facilities around the world. And as in so many other professions featuring rich and deep-rooted histories, hierarchies created long ago have been assumed by modern-day caregivers.

So it was no surprise when emergency medicine leaders in Phoenix, AZ, initially struggled in trying to improve their medical facility’s patient experience scores. But by focusing on the heart of the matter, and successfully selling a culture of quality to staff, they helped employees overcome social norms to achieve success for the organization and, most importantly, the patient

Banner Health, a nonprofit healthcare provider, encompasses 24 acute-care hospitals and healthcare facilities in seven states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming) while employing more than 36,000 individuals. Located in Phoenix, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center is a Level One trauma hospital that provides services to more than 60,000 patients annually.

The Emergency Physician Insurance Program (EPIP) is a partnership between Banner Health, Emergency Professional Services, North Valley Emergency Services, and Progressive Medical Associates. EPIP, established in 2003, addresses challenges involving malpractice coverage, while reducing the cost of malpractice coverage and overall risk found in five Banner Health emergency departments.

Understanding the importance of positive patient experiences, EPIP created staff leadership groups, or vision teams, that sought to achieve better patient interactions, communications, and outcomes while also decreasing risk of malpractice. A vision team composed of Banner Health physicians in Arizona was tasked with studying how staff could improve patient experience scores and reduce litigation risks.

Dr. Moneesh Bhow, medical director at Banner Good Samaritan Emergency Department, and the rest of the Patient Experience Vision Team, began a near two-year process of digging into the patient survey data. But Bhow quickly recognized an integral piece to the puzzle was missing from the physician-only vision team: nurses. At Good Samaritan, like many medical facilities, Bhow said a culture exists that creates a sort of separation between doctors and nurses.

Gretchen Dallman, a nurse manager within the emergency department, agreed that motivating the two sides to work together and create positive experiences was a cultural change that was not going to be easy or happen overnight.

Using the define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) approach and Pareto analysis of patient experience data, team leaders learned:

• Part of the problem was the lag time from when the patient left the facility to when staff received feedback through mailed surveys.
• Many unhappy patients, regardless of the care they received, felt there was a lack of communication between doctors and nurses.

To address these issues, the patient experience team implemented the following process improvements:

Created a realtime, point-of-service survey program to improve the reaction capabilities for the staff to make meaningful strides in helping unhappy or distressed patients.

Moved doctor-nurse conversations to the bedside.

Introduced “story time” within preshift meetings, during which staff members shared tales of patient care victories, large and small.

Beyond the data collection and analysis, the patient experience team also focused on the emotional side of the equation, specifically as relates to staff. A major focal point of the improvement project was centered on engaging the clinician. A culture change had to take place, Dallman said, so the vision team turned its scope away from the patients and onto themselves.

As a result of process improvements, patients are now 89 percent less likely to file a complaint when a physician or nurse addresses any concerns prior to discharge, which ultimately helps curb the risk of litigation.

[Order Now]

CASE STUDY CHALLENGE

1. Students should be asked to read the case and discuss all procedures done and suggest a solution program.
2. Conclusion (15%)

Briefly summarize your thoughts & conclusion to your critique of the case study and provide a possible outcome for the patient positive experience.  How did these articles and Chapters influence your opinions about check-in procedures and Office visit?

Evaluation will be based on how clearly you respond to the above, in particular:

1. a) The clarity with which you critique the case study;
2. b) The depth, scope, and organization of your paper; and,
3. c) Your conclusions, including a description of the impact of these Case study on any Health Care Setting and the marketing projects.

Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores

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. Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores Place the Order Here: https://standardwriter.com/orders/ordernow / https://standardwriter.com/

Hierarchies to Improve Patient Experience Scores

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!