NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation
Student Name
Capella University
NHS-FPX 6004 Health Care Law and Policy
Prof. Name
Date
Dashboard Metrics Evaluation
Healthcare organizations use dashboard evaluation to visualize performance metrics in specific areas by relating data to benchmarks set by any local or national healthcare agency (Helminski et al., 2022). This dashboard evaluation report is for diabetic management performance, underpinning three important metrics known as HgbA1c level, eye test, and foot test in Mercy Medical Center (MMC) patients. The data evaluation will help identify the team or organization’s back draws, facilitating targeted areas for improvement and enhancing diabetes management.
Evaluation of Dashboard Metrics
For diabetes management, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has set benchmarks for HgbA1c level and eye and foot exams at least once a year (Cooksey, 2020). On a similar page The National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report (NHQDR) recommends at least two HgbA1c tests yearly, with a benchmark of 79.5% for the HbgA1c test (ADA, 2019). The data metrics on the Vila Health Dashboard provide information on 2019 and 2020, mentioning the number of patients in each year divided into four quarters. The primary concern demonstrated in the data is the declining trend in HgbA1c and low foot exam rate. For instance, in (Quarter) Q3 of 2020, the HgbA1c number of patients was 78.
However, it declined to 64 in Q4. Similarly, the foot exam data shows major fluctuations, demonstrating 75, 50, 48, and 62 in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 of 2020, respectively. The number is significantly low.The underperforming metrics of foot require major improvement due to various reasons. To prevent diabetes-related foot problems, conducting foot exams at least once a year is essential. Studies state that delaying or missing foot exams can cause various issues in diabetes patients, such as decreased sensation, prone to wounds, delay in healing, and, worst, limb amputation (Song & Chambers, 2021).
It also increases healthcare costs and reduces quality of life due to disability. Similarly, HgbA1c, the glucose level in patients, measures the onset of complications of diabetes or other disease. The diabetes dashboard shows that HgbA1c level tests are not meeting the benchmark of various federal healthcare policies; for instance, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other healthcare regulations emphasize preventive measures through annual examination (CMS, 2023). So, MMC needs to improve the ratio of foot exams and HgbA1c level tests to manage diabetes effectively.
Organizational Performance Shortfalls and Informational Gaps
The dashboard mentions new patients’ information, categorizing it by race, gender, and age; it lacks information on the number of patients in previous quarters. The data shows that the white community is highest in percentage (63), the female percentage is higher (62) than men (38), and the 40-64 age range is highest in percentage (38) for these tests. However, more information on demographics must be needed to assess the disparities and patient outcomes.
The factors for low foot exams and HgbA1c level tests are also unknown. Information on these areas would have helped in better understanding and analysis. The declining trend in HgbA1c and low rate of foot exams shows MMC underperformance, for instance, HgbA1c increased from 37% to 48% in 2019-2020, showing a huge milestone to achieve the benchmark set by NHQDR (ADA, 2019). MMC needs to increase its screening rate to achieve a benchmark.
Consequence of not Meeting Prescribed Benchmarks
Not meeting set benchmarks for diabetes management can have a profound negative impact on the patient’s health, the healthcare team, and the organization (MMC). The quality of care is reduced to a notable extent due to continuous delay or missed screening for foot, eye, or HgbA1c tests. Early detection helps make early interventions, and late diagnosis can cause irrefutable damage to organs like the foot and eyes or cause chronic diseases, reducing quality of life (Lv et al., 2023).
Meeting benchmarks can also cause patient dissatisfaction as the organization needs to be more encouraging and conduct regular screening at the end of the medical center. The healthcare organization can have profound implications for not meeting benchmarks related to diabetes management. For instance, non-compliance to local or federal benchmarks can cause legal or financial penalties (Lv et al., 2023).
NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation
Additionally, in value-based care models, MMC can face reduced reimbursement rates and financial penalties for failing to meet quality criteria. Failure to meet the benchmark can tarnish MMC’s reputation due to poor ratings or negative publicity (Jing et al., 2023). It can also impact resource allocation for inefficient care delivery by investing in training or quality improvement programs, not realizing the primary cause of patient dissatisfaction. Staffing issues follow this due to an inefficient workplace environment or tarnished reputation, which can increase staff turnover (Alsadaan et al., 2023).
It is essential to understand that these tests require a physical examination for testing foot, eye, or HgbA1c levels, so physical space accommodating a higher volume of patients can cause problems. Support services are also under the impact of failing to meet the benchmarks, as complications and ineffective measures can make departments like pharmacy or dietary not cooperate. There are chances of increased disparity, as also notable in the fact sheet of diverse communities seeking healthcare services at MMC. The entire staff’s skills and performance are eroded and damaged due to insufficient confidence in healthcare’s ability to provide high-quality quality for diabetes management (Alsadaan et al., 2023).
Assumptions Underlying the Analysis
The assumptions under the analysis are that MMC is liable and determined to provide high-quality care for diabetes management. It also assumes that there are clear and measurable consequences of not meeting benchmarks that impact patient’s health outcomes, the team’s performance, and the organization’s functioning (Song & Chambers, 2021).
A Benchmark Underperformance in a Healthcare Organization
One benchmark that can potentially improve healthcare performance and care quality is the HgbA1c level test. Usually, the ADA suggests an annual examination for glucose levels. However, it suggests conducting bi-annual or quarterly exams to ensure the early detection of diabetic complications is not missed. It will allow healthcare personnel to monitor blood glucose, consistently facilitating early detection and interventions. If left untreated or misdiagnosed, it can lead to complications like cardiovascular diseases, retinopathy, and neuropathy (Eyth & Naik, 2023).
Regular monitoring of blood glucose levels allows healthcare professionals to maintain glucose levels, preventing acute or chronic diseases associated with diabetes. Poorly controlled HgbA1c can lead to hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and diabetic nephropathy. So, regular screening and monitoring will improve patient outcomes and reduce medical costs associated with chronic disease management (Cosic et al., 2023). Regular screening will also allow healthcare professionals to promote diabetes self-management by educating them about current glucose level results, encouraging them to adhere to medicine, and bringing lifestyle changes like dietary or physical activities to control glucose levels (Lin et al., 2022).
Lastly, this will benefit MMC by optimizing resource allocation with a proactive approach through regular screening of HgbA1c at the medical center. It will reduce costs associated with expensive medical interventions, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. Consequently, benefiting patients, team performance, and healthcare organizations by providing high care quality, self-managing techniques, and cost-effective measures (Cosic et al., 2023).
Ethical and Sustainable Action(S)
To address this underperformance benchmark of HgbA1c at MMC, a group of stakeholders participation is required to improve quality care for diabetes management. The stakeholders include healthcare providers such as physicians and nurses, administrators, and policymakers, who must develop ethical and sustainable measures to improve diabetes management at MMC. Ethical consideration includes four ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, maleficence, and justice (Asadi et al., 2023). Physicians are the first healthcare providers to interact with patients and nurses. Both of them are responsible for delivering direct care and conducting HgbA1c tests.
They must take action to ensure adherence to clinical guidelines and benchmarks and implement measures with ethical consideration (Sørensen et al., 2020). For instance, educating patients about diabetes, HgbA1c level, and self-management ensures the four principles of ethics. It allows autonomous decisions after being educated, measures to provide benefits and avoid harm, and also provides accurate information (Ernawati et al., 2021).
NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation
Administrators are responsible for overseeing operations and ensuring the allocation of available resources in promoting and conducting regular screening of HgbA1c. They have a role in ethical practices by equitable staff training, resource allocation, and accountability and transparency measures. They can advocate for policies and regulations that promote patient-centered care and equity, aligning with the organization’s ethical principles (Bhati et al., 2023).
Additionally, policymakers can significantly encourage policies and regulations promoting systematic change in MMC for regular screening practices. They can assist in implementing rules that prioritize preventive care measures in MMC through a value-based care model. They also advocate for policies encompassing social determinants, promoting equitable access to diverse groups, and helping reduce disparities (Mogueo et al., 2022). These stakeholders and ethical measures ensure ethical practices and encourage long-term sustainable practices, enhancing diabetes care management through regular screening of HgbA1c, eye, and foot.
Conclusion
The evaluation of MMC’s dashboard metrics reveals underperformance in diabetes management, notably in HgbA1c testing and foot exams. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders, including healthcare providers, administrators, and policymakers, are essential to address these issues ethically and sustainably. Improving HgbA1c testing can enhance patient outcomes, resource allocation, and organizational performance, guided by ethical principles.
References
ADA. (2019). Standards of medical care in diabetes—2019 abridged for primary care providers. Clinical Diabetes, 37(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.2337/cd18-0105
Alsadaan, N., Salameh, B., Reshia, F. A. A. E., Alruwaili, R. F., Alruwaili, M., Awad Ali, S. A., Alruwaili, A. N., Hefnawy, G. R., Alshammari, M. S. S., Alrumayh, A. G. R., Alruwaili, A. O., & Jones, L. K. (2023). Impact of nurse leaders behaviors on nursing staff performance: A systematic review of literature. Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing, 60(60), 469580231178528. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580231178528
Asadi, M., Zahedi, F., Ebrahimpur, M., & Larijani, B. (2023). Ethical challenges in gestational diabetes. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v16i6.13470
Bhati, D., Deogade, M. S., & Kanyal, D. (2023). Improving patient outcomes through effective hospital administration: A comprehensive review. Cureus, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47731
NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation
CMS. (2023). Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) expanded model | CMS. Www.cms.gov. https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/Medicare-diabetes-prevention-program
Cooksey, C. (2020). Strategies to improve annual diabetic foot screening compliance at a family clinic. Clinical Diabetes, 38(4), 386–389. https://doi.org/10.2337/cd20-0030
Cosic, V., Jakab, J., Pravecek, M. K., & Miskic, B. (2023). The importance of prediabetes screening in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Medical Archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 77(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2023.77.97-104
Ernawati, U., Wihastuti, T. A., & Utami, Y. W. (2021). Effectiveness of Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients: Systematic literature review. Journal of Public Health Research, 10(2), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2021.2240
Eyth, E., & Naik, R. (2023, March 13). Hemoglobin A1C. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549816/
Helminski, D., Kurlander, J. E., Renji, A. D., Sussman, J. B., Pfeiffer, P. N., Conte, M. L., Gadabu, O. J., Kokaly, A. N., Goldberg, R., Ranusch, A., Damschroder, L. J., & Landis-Lewis, Z. (2022). Dashboards in health care settings: Protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Research Protocols, 11(3), e34894. https://doi.org/10.2196/34894
Jing, S., Yu, Y., & Yuan, B. (2023). Study on the determinants of health professionals’ performance on diabetes management care in China. BMC Primary Care, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02136-z
NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation
Lin, H.-C., Tseng, C.-W., Hsieh, P.-J., Liang, H.-L., Sue, S.-P., Huang, C.-Y., & Lee, M.-Y. (2022). Efficacy of self-management on glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients treated with insulin. Healthcare, 10(10), 2080. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10102080
Lv, K., Cui, C., Fan, R., Zha, X., Wang, P., Zhang, J., Zhang, L., Ke, J., Zhao, D., Cui, Q., & Yang, L. (2023). Detection of diabetic patients in people with normal fasting glucose using machine learning. BMC Medicine, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03045-9
Mogueo, A., Defo, B. K., & Mbanya, J. C. (2022). Healthcare providers’ and policymakers’ experiences and perspectives on barriers and facilitators to chronic disease self-management for people living with hypertension and diabetes in Cameroon. BMC Primary Care, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01892-8
Song, K., & Chambers, A. R. (2021). Diabetic foot care. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553110/
Sørensen, M., Groven, K. S., Gjelsvik, B., Almendingen, K., & Holme, L. G. (2020). The roles of healthcare professionals in diabetes care: A qualitative study in Norwegian general practice. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 38(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2020.1714145