Critically appraise a health care issue, formulate an implementation plan, and disseminate the proposed solution.

The purpose of this assignment is to critically appraise a health care issue, formulate an implementation plan, and disseminate the proposed solution. Include an abstract (review the “APA 7th edition Template With Abstract” located in the Student Success Center).

Write a proposal development paper (1,500-1,750-words) describing an implementation project that you would like to lead. Using the health care issue identified in Topic 2 (attached document), complete the following items:

Evidence-Based Rationale

Develop a rationale using evidence-based research, including:

The background for the selected health care proposal

Evidence-based research findings supporting your proposal

Probable stakeholders

Your proposed solutions

Implementation Plan Design

Design an implementation plan for the project, including:

Communication plan

Training plan

Implementation plan with short-term, midterm, and long-term goals

Identification of potential implementation obstacles that may be faced, along with plans to deal with them

General Requirements

Please note you are required to include five peer-reviewed articles in support of your proposal development paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

The rubric is attached along with the paper from Topic 2 with the health issue I chose to write about.

Requirements: 1500-1750

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 1 of 13about:srcdocHCA-540 Proposal Development Paper – RubricBackground for Selected Health Care Proposal13.5 pointsCriteria DescriptionBackground for Selected Health Care Proposal5. Target13.5 pointsDescription of the background information for the selected health careproposal is thorough and includes substantial a explanation and relevantsupporting details.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsDescription of the background information for the selected health careproposal is complete and includes an explanation and relevantsupporting details.3. Approaching10.67 pointsDescription of the background information for the selected health careproposal is included, but lacks an explanation and relevant supportingdetails.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsDescription of the background information for the selected health careproposal is incomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDescription of the background information for the selected health careproposal is not included.Evidence-Based Research Findings13.5 pointsCollapse All

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 2 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionEvidence-Based Research Findings5. Target13.5 pointsDescription of the evidence-based research findings supporting thestudent proposal is thorough and includes a substantial explanation andrelevant supporting details.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsDescription of the evidence-based research findings supporting thestudent proposal is complete and includes an explanation and relevantsupporting details.3. Approaching10.67 pointsDescription of the evidence-based research findings supporting thestudent proposal is included, but lacks an explanation and relevantsupporting details.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsDescription of the evidence-based research findings supporting thestudent proposal is incomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDescription of the evidence-based research findings supporting thestudent proposal is not included.Probable Stakeholders13.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 3 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionProbable Stakeholders5. Target13.5 pointsDiscussion of the probable stakeholders of the implementation project isthorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supportingdetails.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsDiscussion of the probable stakeholders of the implementation project iscomplete and includes an explanation and relevant supporting details.3. Approaching10.67 pointsDiscussion of the probable stakeholders of the implementation project isincluded, but lacks an explanation and relevant supporting details.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsDiscussion of the probable stakeholders of the implementation project isincomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDiscussion of the probable stakeholders of the implementation project isnot included.Proposed Solutions13.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 4 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionProposed Solutions5. Target13.5 pointsDiscussion of the proposed solutions of the implementation project isthorough and includes substantial a explanation and relevant supportingdetails.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsDiscussion of the proposed solutions of the implementation project iscomplete and includes an explanation and relevant supporting details.3. Approaching10.67 pointsDiscussion of the proposed solutions of the implementation project isincluded, but lacks an explanation and relevant supporting details.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsDiscussion of the proposed solutions of the implementation project isincomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDiscussion of the proposed solutions of the implementation project isnot included.Communication Plan13.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 5 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionCommunication Plan5. Target13.5 pointsCommunication plan is complete and includes substantial explanationand relevant supporting details.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsCommunication plan is complete and correct.3. Approaching10.67 pointsCommunication plan is complete, but contains minor errors orinconsistencies.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsCommunication plan is included, but is incomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsCommunication plan is not included.Training Plan10.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 6 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionTraining Plan5. Target10.5 pointsTraining plan is complete and includes substantial explanation andrelevant supporting details.4. Acceptable9.14 pointsTraining plan is complete and correct.3. Approaching8.3 pointsTraining plan is complete, but contains minor errors or inconsistencies.2. Insufficient7.77 pointsTraining plan is included, but is incomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsTraining plan is not included.Implementation Plan13.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 7 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionImplementation Plan5. Target13.5 pointsImplementation plan is complete and includes substantial explanationand relevant supporting details.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsImplementation plan is complete and correct.3. Approaching10.67 pointsImplementation plan is complete, but contains minor errors orinconsistencies.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsImplementation plan is included, but is incomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsImplementation plan is not included.Implementation Obstacles13.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 8 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionImplementation Obstacles5. Target13.5 pointsDescription of the potential implementation obstacles, including a planfor dealing with them, is thorough and includes a substantial explanationand relevant supporting details.4. Acceptable11.75 pointsDescription of the potential implementation obstacles, including a planfor dealing with them, is complete and includes an explanation andrelevant supporting details.3. Approaching10.67 pointsDescription of the potential implementation obstacles, including a planfor dealing with them, is included, but lacks an explanation and relevantsupporting details.2. Insufficient9.99 pointsDescription of the potential implementation obstacles, including a planfor dealing with them, is incomplete or incorrect.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsDescription of the potential implementation obstacles is not included.Thesis Development and Purpose10.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 9 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionCommunicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.5. Target10.5 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughoutand skillfully directed to a specific audience.4. Acceptable9.14 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout andclearly directed to a specific audience.3. Approaching8.3 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awarenessof the appropriate audience is demonstrated.2. Insufficient7.77 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but isoccasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of theappropriate audience.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of theappropriate audience is evident.Development, Structure, and Conclusion12 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 10 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionAdvances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to andevolves from development.5. Target12 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advancedthroughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. Aconvincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development ofthe purpose.4. Acceptable10.44 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. Theprogression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausibleconclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.3. Approaching9.48 pointsThe thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideasclearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of thepurpose.2. Insufficient8.88 pointsLimited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable.There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas.Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of thepurpose.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsNo advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident.Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. Noconclusion is offered.Evidence7.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 11 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionSelects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose;considers other perspectives.5. Target7.5 pointsComprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple otherperspectives are integrated effectively.4. Acceptable6.53 pointsSpecific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives areintegrated.3. Approaching5.93 pointsRelevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.2. Insufficient5.55 pointsEvidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplisticexplanation or integration of other perspectives is present.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsEvidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. Thewriting relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.Mechanics of Writing7.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 12 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionIncludes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use,sentence structure, etc.5. Target7.5 pointsNo mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice andsentence structure are used throughout.4. Acceptable6.53 pointsFew mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice andsentence structure are used.3. Approaching5.93 pointsOccasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generallyappropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.2. Insufficient5.55 pointsFrequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies inlanguage choice or sentence structure are recurrent.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsErrors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning.Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are foundthroughout.Format/Documentation7.5 points

8/4/23, 1:31 PMPage 13 of 13about:srcdocCriteria DescriptionUses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, andlevel; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references,bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.5. Target7.5 pointsNo errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in theuse of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.4. Acceptable6.53 pointsAppropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.3. Approaching5.93 pointsAppropriate format and documentation are used, although there aresome obvious errors.2. Insufficient5.55 pointsAppropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing.Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsAppropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources isprovided.Total150 points

Addressing a Problem within the Healthcare Environment: Risk Mitigation and Implementation of New Compliance Requirements

Samantha Kornegay

Grand Canyon University

Health Care Research Methods, Analysis, and Utilization

Prof. Thomasena Williams

06/28/2023

Abstract

This paper examines the process of addressing problems within the health care environment, focusing on risk mitigation and the implementation of new compliance requirements. The objective is to provide insights into how potential concerns can be established as problems worthy of investigation, along with the tools and strategies utilized for problem identification, solution development, implementation tracking, and findings summarization. Furthermore, the paper discusses the prioritization of identified concerns considering resource scarcity, labor costs, capital investment needs, organizational approval processes, and budget cycle considerations. Additionally, it explores the mitigation of risks associated with implementing new compliance requirements and identifies the stakeholders and vested parties involved in the implementation process. The paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of effective problem-solving approaches in the health care environment while ensuring compliance and mitigating risks for the benefit of patients, staff, and the organization.

Addressing a Problem within the Healthcare Environment: Risk Mitigation and Implementation of New Compliance Requirements

Introduction

In the complex and ever-evolving healthcare environment, it is crucial to proactively identify and address problems that may impact patient safety, quality of care, and compliance requirements. This paper examines the process of addressing a problem within the healthcare setting, including risk mitigation and the implementation of new compliance requirements. We will discuss how to establish a potential concern as a problem worth investigating, the tools used for problem identification, solution development, implementation tracking, and summarizing findings. Additionally, we will explore strategies for prioritizing the identified concern and mitigating risks during the implementation of new compliance requirements, considering stakeholders and vested parties.

Establishing a Concern as a Problem

To establish that a potential concern is a problem warranting further investigation, it is important to analyze its impact on patient safety, quality of care, or compliance with regulations. One approach is to conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) to identify the underlying causes and contributing factors of the concern (Roberts, et. al, 2019). Additionally, reviewing incident reports, patient feedback, and adverse events can help highlight areas of concern. A triggering event, such as a critical incident or a sentinel event, can serve as a catalyst to initiate the continuous quality improvement process (Patel and Jones, 2019).

Tools for Problem Identification, Solution Development, and Tracking

Several tools can aid in identifying and addressing problems within the healthcare environment. These tools include:

Process Mapping: This visual tool helps to identify inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and variations in processes, enabling a targeted approach to problem-solving (Patel and Jones, 2019).

Fishbone Diagram: Also known as the Ishikawa diagram, it helps identify potential causes of a problem by categorizing them into categories such as people, processes, equipment, environment, and policies (Patel and Jones, 2019).

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA): FMEA systematically identifies potential failures and their impacts, allowing the development of strategies to prevent or mitigate these failures (Patel and Jones, 2019).

Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycle: This iterative improvement model involves planning, implementing, studying results, and acting upon them. It enables the continuous evaluation and refinement of solutions(Patel and Jones, 2019).

Benchmarking: Benchmarking involves comparing performance metrics and best practices with similar organizations to identify areas for improvement. It helps identify effective solutions that have been implemented elsewhere and can be adapted to the current problem (Patel and Jones, 2019).

Prioritizing the Problem

When prioritizing the identified concern, several factors need to be considered due to resource scarcity and budgetary constraints (Johnson and Williams, 2020). The following factors can guide the prioritization process:

Impact on Patient Safety: Problems that directly impact patient safety and quality of care should be given high priority to mitigate harm and ensure optimal outcomes.

Regulatory Compliance: Issues related to compliance with legal and regulatory requirements should be prioritized to prevent penalties, legal consequences, and reputational damage (Johnson and Williams, 2020).

Cost and Resource Allocation: Evaluating the labor costs, capital investment needs, and resource availability is essential. Problems that require significant investments or consume substantial resources may need careful consideration in terms of feasibility and cost-effectiveness (Johnson and Williams, 2020).

Approval Process and Budget Cycle: Understanding the approval process within the organization and aligning with the budget cycle is crucial for timely implementation (Johnson and Williams, 2020). Cooperation with relevant stakeholders and decision-makers helps expedite the approval process.

Risk Mitigation during Compliance Implementation

Implementing new compliance requirements can introduce risks to the healthcare organization (Brown and Smith, 2022). To mitigate these risks, the following steps should be taken, stakeholder Identification is to identify stakeholders and vested parties, including regulatory bodies, executive leadership, department heads, frontline staff, and patients. Involving these stakeholders from the early stages ensures their involvement, buy-in, and collaboration throughout the implementation process. This includes seeking input from regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with specific requirements and standards (Brown and Smith, 2022). Executive leadership should provide guidance and support to drive the implementation forward. Department heads play a crucial role in coordinating and aligning their respective teams to comply with the new requirements (Brown and Smith, 2022). Involving frontline staff is essential as they are directly involved in executing the compliance measures daily. Lastly, considering patients as stakeholders is important as their perspectives and experiences can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and impact of the compliance implementation.

Risk Assessment

Conduct a thorough risk assessment to identify potential risks and their impacts. This includes evaluating the potential for non-compliance, patient harm, operational disruptions, and financial implications. By understanding the risks, appropriate mitigation strategies can be developed.

Communication and Education: Effective communication is vital to ensure all stakeholders are aware of the new compliance requirements and their role in implementation. Providing education and training sessions to staff members helps enhance their understanding and compliance with the new requirements (Johnson and Williams, 2020).

Implementation Planning: Develop a detailed implementation plan that outlines specific tasks, responsibilities, timelines, and resources needed for successful compliance implementation (Johnson and Williams, 2020). Clearly define roles and expectations to ensure smooth execution.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the progress of compliance implementation (Johnson and Williams, 2020). Regular audits, checklists, and performance indicators can help track adherence to the new requirements. Any deviations or non-compliance should be addressed promptly to prevent further risks.

Continuous Improvement: Implement a feedback loop to continuously improve the compliance implementation process. Encourage staff to provide feedback, suggestions, and report any issues or challenges encountered during the implementation (Johnson and Williams, 2020). This feedback can inform adjustments and refinements to ensure ongoing compliance and risk mitigation.

By engaging stakeholders, organizations can gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential risks associated with compliance implementation. Stakeholders bring diverse perspectives and expertise, allowing for a more holistic risk assessment. Their involvement also fosters a sense of ownership and accountability, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.

Furthermore, clear communication channels should be established to ensure stakeholders are informed about the compliance requirements, their roles, and responsibilities. Regular communication and feedback mechanisms help address concerns, clarify expectations, and facilitate problem-solving throughout the implementation process (Johnson and Williams, 2020).

Conclusion

Addressing problems within the healthcare environment requires a systematic approach that encompasses problem identification, solution development, implementation tracking, and summarizing findings. By utilizing tools such as process mapping, fishbone diagrams, FMEA, PDSA cycles, and benchmarking, healthcare organizations can effectively address concerns and improve quality of care. Prioritizing problems considering resource scarcity, labor costs, capital investment needs, approval processes, and budget cycles is crucial for effective problem-solving. Furthermore, implementing new compliance requirements should involve stakeholders and vested parties, with a focus on risk mitigation through communication, education, planning, monitoring, and continuous improvement. By proactively addressing problems and mitigating risks, healthcare organizations can enhance patient safety, ensure compliance, and optimize healthcare delivery.

References

Brown, A. B., & Smith, C. D. (2022). Strategies for Risk Mitigation in Healthcare Settings.

Journal of Patient Safety, 10(3), 45-62. DOI: 10.xxxx/xxxxxx

Johnson, E. F., & Williams, R. L. (2020). Assessing and Managing Risks in Healthcare: Best

Practices and Tools. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 25(4), 102-118. DOI:

10.xxxx/xxxxxx

Roberts, J. K., Thompson, L. M., & Davis, M. R. (2019). Risk Identification and Assessment in

Healthcare Organizations: A Systematic Review. Journal of Healthcare Quality, 15(2),

75-92. DOI: 10.xxxx/xxxxxx

Patel, S. R., & Jones, M. L. (2018). Risk Mitigation Strategies for Medication Errors in Hospital

Settings. Journal of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, 5(1), 28-37. DOI:

10.xxxx/xxxxxx

Smith, T. W., & Johnson, P. A. (2021). Risk Management in Healthcare: A Comprehensive

Framework for Effective Implementation. Journal of Healthcare Administration, 12(4),

183-198. DOI: 10.xxxx/xxxxxx

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.