Quality Across Models Comparative Analysis In 2018, the cost of U.S. healthcare cost grew 4.4%, reaching $3.65 trillion (cms.org, 2018). However, despite this expenditure, the U.S. lags behind other developed countries in both the quality of care and patient safety (commonwealthfund.org, (Links to an external site.) 2017).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included the mandate to move healthcare toward quality, safe and cost-effective care. Advanced practice nurses must now be proficient in quality assurance/quality improvement activities to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes and to meet reporting requirements that impact reimbursement. Several new models have been identified for reform in primary care practice.
The ANA has called for APRN’s to take an active role in leading the improvement in care (https://www.nursingworld.org/~4af0e8/globalassets/docs/ana/ethics/new-delivery-models—final—haney—6-9-10-1532.pdf (Links to an external site.)).
To ensure nursing has the future role described by the IOM, APRN’s must be able to show they can take the lead in new models to advance healthcare reform.
ASSIGNMENT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this assignment is to allow the student to demonstate their ability to apply the knowledge and skills learned in this module to
1) analyze QA/QI data,
2) use the data to compare nurse-led models with other models on quality performance,
3) identify priorities based on the analysis,
4) choose an appropriate toolkit to address the priorities and
5) develop a technical, scholarly written report on the findings based on the criteria in the rubric.
The survey of practice-level quality assurance and quality improvement activity (based on the National Quality Strategy (NQS) Levers) has been completed, and the data compiled.
Below you will find an excel file with the compiled raw data and survey results. We suggest you don’t print the Excel file pages as this is a scrolling spreadsheet designed to assist you in analyzing the data.
Excel Spreadsheet Analysis Tool (Version 2.0) .xlsxPreview the document Be sure to “enable editing” so you can click or hover over the highlighted yellow areas for definitions.
Perform your analysis of the data and prepare a written report of your findings.
You will want to use headings to organize your paper: Title heading (for the introduction)
Practice Standards (a short section discussing practice standards in general) CABC Standards JC Standards Leadership Priorities for Compliance Toolkit Conclusion References Please click on the following file which contains a template to use for your paper and Table and follow the requirements in the grading rubric: APA__7th_Word_Template_for_FNU_Students-PC713 2.0.docx
Preview the document Please click on the following link to view a PDF which contains instructions for constructing your table: Quality Across Models Table instructions 3.19.20 (1).docxPreview the document
The report is limited to 1200 words.
The word count does not include the title page, references, or table. When word limits apply, using frequency tables to report data is very helpful in describing your sample.
A table is included in the paper template following the references page(s). Please complete the table with findings in the data.
The purpose of the table is to help you report the results succinctly. Do not repeat the same information in the table in the text, as this is redundant. Summarize the findings in the text and refer your reader to the table for additional details.
Use Grammerly (supplied by Frontier) and follow APA style guidelines for technical writing.
Refer to the APA Manual 7th Edition and the APA Resources Guide found on the left sidebar of Canvas. By Friday 11:55 PM EST (Hyden Time) Week 5, upload your comparative analysis report to the assignment dropbox.
If you submit your assignment early, please notify your assigned faculty via email and they may be able to grade earlier.
However, our commitment is to grade all assignments within 5 business days of an assignment due date. Rubric QA/QI Comparative Analysis (1) QA/QI Comparative Analysis (1) Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction and Sample Description 8.0 pts Meets All Requirements *The introduction is well written and logically organized. *Summarizes the purpose of the survey and the paper.
*Describes site characteristics including geographic locations, types of practices, and model types with definitions.
*Makes a statement about QA/QI performance across sites.
*Identifies the respondent with the highest compliance rates.
7.3 pts Meets standards of clarity, accuracy and logical organization but is missing one required element 6.4 pts Shows minor deficits in clarity, accuracy or organization and is missing one required element 0.0 pts Does not meet minimum requirements: Introduction shows major deficits in clarity, accuracy or organization and is missing 2 or more elements. 8.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCABC standards 6-8 7.0 pts Meets all requirements Clearly, logically and accurately summarizes the participants’ performance on CABC standards using ranges and percentages. Includes a statement of APRN-led model performance compared to other models. Describes variations in high and low compliance across models, settings and locations. 6.3 pts Clear, logical and accurate summary but missing one required element. 5.6 pts *Summary lacks clarity, accuracy or is illogically organized and is missing one required element or is missing 2 required elements. 0.0 pts Does not meet requirements Summary lacks clarity, accuracy or is not logically organized and is missing > 2 required elements 7.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeJC standards 9-11 7.0 pts Meets All Requirements *Clearly, logically and accurately summarizes the participants’ performance on JC standards using ranges and percentages. *Includes a statement of APRN model performance compared to other models. *Describes variations in high and low compliance across models, settings and locations. 6.3 pts Clear, logical and accurate summary but missing one required element. 5.6 pts Summary lack clarity, accuracy or is illogically organized and is missing one required element or is missing 2 required elements. 0.0 pts Does not meet requirements Summary lacks clarity, accuracy or is not logically organized and is missing > 2 required elements 7.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunicates Leadership Priorities 8.0 pts Meets All Requirements Clearly describes and justifies one CABC leadership priority and one JC leadership priority. Leadership priorities are identified as CABC or JC priorities. Provides a logical, well-written justification of why each priority was chosen based on the findings from the analysis and supports the choice using current, peer-reviewed literature to explain how and why addressing this priority will impact the quality of patient care. Includes citations and references of at least one peer-reviewed journal article for each priority. 7.3 pts Meets all criteria with minor deficits. Fails to identify the priority as CABC or JC, or minor deficits in clarity or logic of choice of priority or justification. 6.4 pts Meets minimum standards. One priority is not clearly or logically justified (how or why is not well addressed) or literature is not current or peer-reviewed; 0.0 pts One priority is missing or *Absent or minimal information on justification of priorities given or references from peer-reviewed literature are not included for each topic. 8.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSelects a TOOL KIT 6.0 pts Meets All Requirements *Selects a tool kit to use across all sites that addresses at least one of the identified priorities. * Provides a well-written, logical description of how the toolkit addresses the quality of care related to the identified priority *The discussion presents a meaningful justification of the selected toolkit and how it applies to the sites under consideration*Includes a reference from current literature to support the choice of toolkits. 5.4 pts 5.4 pts Minor deficits in clarity or logic of appropriateness of toolkit for sites or or the justification for the choice or the reference is not current. 4.8 pts *A tool kit is identified that addresses one of the identified sites, description of how it addresses the quality of care or justification for the choice present but limited. 0.0 pts A toolkit is not identified, or is not appropriate for use across all sites, or lacks support from the literature or no description or justification is given. 6.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion 6.0 pts Meets All Requirements Concludes the comparative analysis with a succinct and logical paragraph summarizing the main points of the paper. *Includes brief, concluding thoughts. *Does not bring up new ideas or information 5.4 pts *Conclusion is logically organized but is missing one of the main points or the brief concluding thoughts, or introduces new ideas of information. 4.8 pts * Conclusion is logically organizes but is missing 2 of the main points of the paper, or the concluding thoughts lack logical connections to the papers content. Does not introduce new content. 0.0 pts *Conclusion is absent. or missing 3 or more key points, or concluding thoughts are missing or new content is introduced. 6.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA 8.0 pts Meets All Requirements *Correct APA format applied for the table, headings, and text according to APA 7th Edition *Contains 10 or fewer grammatical, punctuation, and/or spelling errors. *Adheres to 1200 word limit. 7.3 pts Meets the criteria with minor errors *Correct APA format applied for the table, headings, and text according to APA 7th Edition *Contains 11-15 grammatical, punctuation, and/or spelling errors. * or exceeds the 1200 word limit by less than 25 words 6.4 pts Meets the minimum criteria *3 or less errors in APA format for the table, headings, and text according to APA 7th Edition or *Contains 16-20 grammatical, punctuation, and/or spelling errors. or *exceeds the 1200 word limit by 26-50 words 0.0 pts Unacceptable *Poor or absent APA format for table and text, significant grammatical, punctuation, spelling errors, and exceeds 1200 word count. 8.0 pts