The Process of Quality Improvement - Special Academic Support

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Quality Improvement Discussion

As explained by Sollecito and Johnson (2013), there are three major methods of patient involvement in CQI micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. At a micro-level, patients are involved in CQI using self-management approaches. They are empowered to take on a new role where they act as agents managing their health status. One of the ways to involve patients is using patient education and self-management programs that are particularly effective for patients suffering from chronic conditions. At a meso-level, patients are involved in more extensive activities that represent improvements of systems, approaches, programs, and services (Sollecito & Johnson, 2013). At this level, patients are involved as the providers of information in the forms of perceptions and evaluations. To be included and strengthen the power of their voices and opinions, patients act as members of organizations and groups that advocate for communities. Finally, a macro-level of patient involvement represents activities that occur and make an impact on international and national scales (Sollecito & Johnson, 2013).

Joint Commission has provided some recommendations as to CQI. One of them is based on ongoing monitoring of quality. This group of processes could involve clients in reporting activities and feedback provision. This could help fulfill another recommendation that encourages the identification of problems to use them as drivers and guidance for quality improvement. In this way, the quality improvement could be transformed into a smooth continuous process with a capacity for self-regulation.

Patient satisfaction is tightly connected to patient involvement; however, the two concepts are rather different. In particular, patient satisfaction may increase after involvement (Vahdat, Hamzehgardeshi, Hessam, & Hamzehgardeshi, 2014). At the same time, the involvement does not guarantee the improvement of satisfaction rates. Patient satisfaction stands with how well their expectations of care matched the level of care that was provided (Parsons, Winterbottom, Cross, & Redding, 2010). Patient involvement is the patients participation in the improvement of the quality of care. Practically, the major contrast is that satisfaction may come from a passive experience while involvement requires active participation.

When it comes to social marketing, this activity is directed at the achievement of behavioral change through the promotion of socially desired actions and choices (Luck et al., 2009). Social marketing is different from regular product marketing because its major focus is not on the persuasion of consumers to purchase something. Instead, social marketing is aimed at the stimulation of change where patients serve as the agents of change. In other words, altering their behaviors, habits, and lifestyle choices, social marketing strategies help induce change into healthcare systems (Firestone, Rowe, Modi, & Sievers, 2017). This form of change happens from the bottom and relies on healthcare providers, services, and organizations as the responding force. In this way, not only the quality of care patients can receive in healthcare facilities is improved but the quality of life and health of the patients as well.

To sum up, the improvement of quality is a multifaceted and complex process that requires a consolidated effort from multiple groups of stakeholders. Joining their forces and addressing the identified problems on different levels, stakeholders can enforce change that could be beneficial for all the sides involved. Consequently, when change is attempted from a single side without taking into consideration the opinions and perceptions of others, the improvement in quality is most likely doomed to failure.

References

Firestone, R., Rowe, C., Modi, S., & Sievers, D. (2017). The effectiveness of social marketing in global health: A systematic review. Health Policy and Planning, 32(1), 110124.

Luck, J., Hagigi, F., Parker, L. E., Yano, E. M., Rubenstein, L. V., & Kirchner, J. E. (2009). A social marketing approach to implementing evidence-based practice in VHA QUERI: The TIDES depression collaborative care model. Implementation Science, 4, 64.

Parsons, S., Winterbottom, A., Cross, P., & Redding, D. (2010). The quality of patient engagement and involvement in primary care. Web.

Sollecito, W. A., & Johnson, J. K. (2013). Continuous quality improvement in health care (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Vahdat, S., Hamzehgardeshi, L., Hessam, S., & Hamzehgardeshi, Z. (2014). Patient involvement in health care decision making: A review. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 16(1), e12454.

Click Here To Order Now!