HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay
HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay
Risk Management Program Analysis
Introduction
Risks to patients, healthcare organizations, staff, and the community are prevalent within healthcare. Therefore, risk management in healthcare is very important in order to facilitate assessment, development, implementation, and monitoring of potential risks in order to prevent or minimize risk exposure (Simsekler et al, 2018). This paper will examine a risk management program with a safe patient environment and care, with a community focus. The selected risk management program is a fall prevention strategy in a community setting. HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Type of Risk Management Plan and Rationale
The risk management plan is fall prevention and reduction program targeting the geriatric population within a community setting. The plan focuses on identifying the individuals in the community at risk of falls and implementing appropriate providing evidence-based interventions. Prevention is the key step towards addressing fall reduction. The rationale for selecting fall prevention and reduction programs as a type of risk management plan is because falls pose major risks to the independence and health of the geriatric population (Ory et al., 2015). Falls are the leading cause of injuries among the geriatric population and they have significant adverse effects on the health and healthcare costs. The evidence further indicates that falls can be fatal especially in the geriatric population (Ory et al., 2015) HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay. Fortunately, falls are preventable and the selected program illustrates a fall prevention program that can be utilized within a community setting in order to minimize falls and assist the geriatric population to maintain their independence and health.
Standard Administrative Steps and Processes
The risk management process within the healthcare sector involves identifying the context; identification of risks; risk analysis; risks’ evaluation; and risks’ management. Identifying the context involves identifying the contextually high priority areas that need risk management in regard to patient care. The second step is to identify risks by becoming aware of the risks within the environment and healthcare services. Risk analysis follows by to comprehend the identified risks and this includes analyzing the intensity of the risks, primary causes and the available control actions against the identified risks (Jiménez-Rodríguez et al., 2018). After risk analysis, it is important to perform risk evaluation in order to prioritize risks basing on the severity of the risk as per the risk analysis score. Finally, risk management follows, where the appropriate measures are implemented in order to prevent and minimize the likelihood of the risk occurring (Lam et al., 2018).
The healthcare sector is a sector that impacts all individuals and hence the quality of care is an important marker of the health market competition. Therefore, there is a need to integrate an effective risk management procedure in healthcare organizations. Total Quality Management (TQM) is important in ensuring improved and better outcomes in the healthcare industry (Lam et al., 2018). The significance of integrating TQM programs such as risk management programs in healthcare organizations is to manage the likely risks that an organization can experience, thus lowering costs and improving customer satisfaction with the organization. The goal of risk management programs can be achieved by successfully fostering a culture that embraces risk management using evidence-based guidelines and evidence (Jiménez-Rodríguez et al., 2018).
In the identified risk management plan, the first step involved identifying the high priority in relation to patient care within the community setting and performing risk analysis. The older adults within the community were reporting high fall rates and hence falls were identified as a high priority area. Lack of available fall risk prevention programs was attributed to the high rate of falls in the community and thus fall prevention and reduction program was implemented.
Key Agencies and Organizations
Some of the key agencies with the responsibility to regulate the provision of safe care include Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO); National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA); Joint Commission; and Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP). AHRQ performs research aimed to improve the quality of health and improving patient safety while JCAHO focuses on ensuring that healthcare institutions provide quality care. NCQA works to ensure that the care plans meet the required quality standards while DHQP protects patients, protects healthcare providers, and promotes the quality care. The Joint commission focuses on the performance improvement measures that assist healthcare organizations to continuously enhance the quality of care and safety; this can lower the risk of low-quality care and medical errors (Allen-Duck et al., 2017).
Evaluation of the Compliance
The risk management program conforms to the requirement of the joint commission to continuously improve the safety and the quality of care; and the DHQP requirement to improve patient safety (Lam et al., 2018). The risk management program is a fall prevention program. The Joint Commission plays an essential role in helping healthcare institutions prevent falls and consequent injuries. The fall prevention program leads to raising awareness regarding the need to prevent falls; communicate safety information to the community and the health care providers; and integration of safety precautions in patient care and education. Fall reduction is the responsibility of everyone and as a result, the nursing staff, the community, physicians, quality and risk management, and physical and occupational therapy were actively involved during the designing of the fall prevention program (Phelan et al., 2015).
Generally, in compliance with the national and state polices and also compliance with the organizations that regulate patient safety, the program aimed to reduce falls and ensuing injuries by implementing various fall prevention measures (Allen-Duck et al., 2017).
Recommendations
Patient education on fall risk should be integrated into the program: The Joint Commission supports raising awareness about fall risk and using clinical champions to educate the relevant stakeholders about fall and the preventative strategies
The fall prevention program should adopt an interprofessional approach: According to the Joint Commission, an interprofessional team should be established in order to adopt a holistic approach towards fall prevention and reduction.
When identifying risk factors for falls in the community, standardized and validated tools should be used.
Post-Fall management should always be performed in order to inform improvement efforts and ensure the reevaluation of individuals sustaining falls (Phelan et al., 2015).
References
Allen-Duck, A., Robinson, J. C., & Stewart, M. W. (2017). Healthcare Quality: A Concept Analysis. Nursing Forum, 52(4), 377–386. doi:10.1111/nuf.12207.
Jiménez-Rodríguez, E., Feria-Domínguez, J. M., & Sebastián-Lacave, A. (2018). Assessing the Health-Care Risk: The Clinical-VaR, a Key Indicator for Sound Management. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(4), 639. doi:10.3390/ijerph15040639.
Lam, M. B., Figueroa, J. F., Feyman, Y., Reimold, K. E., Orav, E. J., & Jha, A. K. (2018). Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US hospitals: an observational study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 363, k4011. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4011.
Ory, M. G., Smith, M. L., Jiang, L., Lee, R., Chen, S., Wilson, A. D., … Parker, E. M. (2015). Fall prevention in community settings: results from implementing stepping on in three States. Frontiers in public health, 2(232). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00232.
Phelan, E. A., Mahoney, J. E., Voit, J. C., & Stevens, J. A. (2015). Assessment and management of fall risk in primary care settings. The Medical clinics of North America, 99(2), 281–293. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2014.11.004.
Simsekler, M., Ward, J. R., & Clarkson, P. J. (2018). Design for patient safety: a systems-based risk identification framework. Ergonomics, 61(8), 1046–1064. doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1437224.
Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis – Part One
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze a health care risk management program.
Conduct research on approaches to risk management processes, policies, and concerns in your current or anticipated professional arena to find an example of a risk management plan. Look for a plan with sufficient content to be able to complete this assignment successfully. In a 1,000‐1,250-word paper, provide an analysis of the risk management plan that includes the following:
Summary of the type of risk management plan you selected (new employee, specific audience, community‐focused, etc.) and your rationale for selecting that example. Describe the health care organization to which the plan applies and the role risk management plays in that setting.
Description of the standard administrative steps and processes in a typical health care organization’s risk management program compared to the administrative steps and processes you identify in your selected example plan. (Note: For standard risk management policies and procedures, look up the MIPPA-approved accrediting body that regulates the risk management standards in your chosen health care sector, and consider federal, state, and local statutes as well.)
Analysis of the key agencies and organizations that regulate the administration of safe health care in your area of concentration and an evaluation of the roles each one plays in the risk management oversight process.
Evaluation of your selected risk management plan’s compliance with the standards of its corresponding MIPPA-approved accrediting body relevant to privacy, health care worker safety, and patient safety.
Proposed recommendations or changes you would implement in your risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure the aforementioned compliance standards.
In addition to your textbook, you are required to support your analysis with a minimum of three peer‐reviewed references.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Course Code
Class Code
Assignment Title
Total Points
HLT-308V
HLT-308V-O500
Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis – Part One
150.0
Criteria
Percentage
1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%)
3: Satisfactory (75.00%)
4: Good (85.00%)
5: Excellent (100.00%)
% Scaling
100.0%
Summary Description of the Type of Risk Management Plan Selected With Rationale
15.0%
A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is not included.
A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected with rationale is comprehensive. The submission incorporates specific examples with relevance and provides appropriate details.
Comparison of Standard Risk Management Program Administrative Steps and Processes With the Administrative Steps and Processes in the Example
15.0%
A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is not included.
A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Analysis of Key Regulatory Agencies and Organizations Inclusive of Their Roles in the Risk Management Oversight Process
15.0%
An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is not included.
An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is present and comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Evaluation of the Example Risk Management Plan Compliance With MIPPA-Approved Accrediting Body Standards (C3.2)
15.0%
An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is not included.
An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is present and comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Proposed Recommendations to the Risk Management Program Example to Enhance, Improve, or Secure Compliance Standards
15.0%
Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are not included.
Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient
Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are present and comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Thesis Development and Purpose
5.0%
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction
5.0%
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5.0%
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5.0%
Sources are not documented.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage
100%
Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis – Part Two
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze how an organization’s quality and improvement processes contribute to its risk management program.
This assignment builds on the Risk Management Program Analysis – Part One assignment you completed in Topic 1 of this course.
Assume that the sample risk management program you analyzed in Topic 1 was implemented and is now currently in use by your health care employer/organization. Further assume that your supervisor has asked you to create a high‐level summary brief of this new risk management program to share with a group of administrative personnel from a newly created community health organization in your state who has enlisted your organization’s assistance in developing their own risk management policies and procedures.
Compose a 1,250‐1,500 word summary brief that expands upon the elements you first addressed in the Topic 1 assignment. In this summary brief, address the following points regarding your health care organization and its risk management program:
Explain the role of your organization’s MIPPA-approved accreditation body (e.g., JC, ACR, IAC) in the evaluation of your institution’s quality improvement and risk management processes.
Describe the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in healthcare ethics and establishing or sustaining employer/employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies.
Illustrate how your organization’s risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, and patient rights and responsibilities.
Explain the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at your organization.
Relate how your organization’s quality improvement processes support and contribute to its overall journey to excellence.
In addition to your textbook, you are required to support your analysis with a minimum of three peer‐reviewed references.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Course Code
Class Code
Assignment Title
Total Points
HLT-308V
HLT-308V-O500
Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis – Part Two
150.0
Criteria
Percentage
1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%)
3: Satisfactory (75.00%)
4: Good (85.00%)
5: Excellent (100.00%)
% Scaling
100.0%
Role of the MIPPA-Approved Accreditation Body in Evaluation of the Quality Improvement and Risk Management Processes of an Organization
15.0%
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is not included. HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Administrative Roles Relevant to Employer-Employee-Focused Risk Management Strategies and Operational Policies
15.0%
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is not included.
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Support of Patient Rights and Responsibilities by Risk Management Programs and Quality Improvement Processes
15.0%
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is not included.
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Health Care Professionals to Uphold Risk Management Policies and Administer Safe Health Care (C3.3)
HLT-308V Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis Part One and Two – Fall prevention strategy essay
15.0%
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is not included.
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
How Quality Improvement Processes in a Health Care Organization Support Its Journey to Excellence
15.0%
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its journey to excellence is not included.
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Thesis Development and Purpose
5.0%
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction
5.0%
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5.0%
Template is not used app
