Quality Assurance in Healthcare: 657872

Question:

Answer:

MS Access Form for Collecting  monitoring and analyzing data for physicians’ reappointment to the medical staff of a general hospital 

12

Q 2. Assessing Quality of Medical Records for 20 Patients

The proposed tool to be used is audit where audits on key indices for data will be measured to establish a baseline and then follow up audits undertaken in subsequent periods and the percentage changes recorded. The audits are proposed to be undertaken quarterly using the tool shown below;

  Yes No Not Applicable Total
  Number % Number % Number % Number %
Accuracy of names used in AMR records 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Birth Place data 18  90 1 5 1 5 19 95
Ethnicity  17 85 3 15 0 0 17 85
Directive to physician 19  95 0 0 1 5 20 100
Personnel authorizing release 16  80 2 10 2 10 18 90
Description of Discharge Summary 8 40 1 5 11 55 19 95
ID Number of Payor  20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Marital Status 11  55 3  15 6 30 17 85
Gender  20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Acknowledgement of patient rights 10 50 10 50 0 0 10 50
Occupation 12 60 5 25 3 15 15 75
Tests done 14  70 0 0 6 30 20 100
Diagnosis 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Treatment Plan ID 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Medication reactions noted and considered  4 20 8 40 8 40 12 60
Treatment/ Intervention Given 19 95 1 5 0 0 19 95
Past medical history 15 75 4 20 1 5 16 80
Clinical order with full text 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Care and treatment plan (full text) 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Treatment Plan in text form 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Time and Date of Order 8 40 12 60 0 0 8 40
Provider details 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Universal health patient number 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 100
Religion 6 30 14 70 0 0 6 30
Date of the earliest held entry 15 75 0 0 5 25 20 100

The overall level of compliance in the 20 medical records evaluated is 91% while non compliance is 9%. The medical records are mostly up to date but three key areas stand out for non compliance; medication reactions consideration had just 60% compliance, yet it is a crucial record in modern clinical management. Many people have had adverse effects because their reactions to medication records are not taken cognizance of. Religious affiliation had the least compliance with 14 records missing this information. In many records (12), the dates were up to date when orders were given but the time not updated or fields left blank.

Click image below to launch PowerPoint

11Q3. T Test of Significance 

The t value was found to be 8.0000

While the df used was 4\

Standard error of difference was 0.667

Using the t test, the P value obtained was 0.0013 which demonstrates that the level of significance is statistically very high (meaning a very statistically significant) level of satisfaction with the quality of service, based on the survey results. The test of significance was done at 95% levels of confidence

Frequency distribution refers to a table displaying the various outcomes frequency within a sample; every entry within the table contains the count of all the value occurrences count within a specific interval. In this way the distribution of the values found within a sample are summarized (Gravetter et al., 2016).

Pareto Charts

The Pareto chart is an important quality control tool to show cumulative frequency and is useful in showing what problems or issues in quality control are the most significant and should therefore, be given greater focus (Provost & Murray, 2011). The Pareto analysis chart works on the 80/ 20 principle which posits that 80 % of problems are caused by 20% of causes (Martz, 2016).

Satisfaction level with Program

10

Description of program

9

How well program fit their needs

8

Rating of Quality Program

7

Q 4. Click on Image to launch PPT

6

5

Statistics

Gravetter, Frederick J, Wallnau, Larry B., & Forzano, Lori-Ann B. (2016). Essentials of 

 for the Behavioral Sciences. Cengage Learning.

Martz, E. (2017). When to Use a Pareto Chart | Minitab. Blog.minitab.com. Retrieved 24

November 2017, from http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understanding-statistics/when-to-use-a-pareto-chart

Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The health care data guide: Learning from data for

improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.