Developing an Implementation PlanDeveloping an Implementation Plan

Developing an Implementation Plan

 

Develop a 6-7-page implementation plan for the initiative you proposed in Assessment 1. Include a budget for material, staffing, and capital costs over the first five years of the initiative, as well as projected earnings. In addition, include a timeline, an organizational impact analysis, and an explanation of the effects of environmental changes on the initiative.

Introduction

Note: Each assessment in this course builds upon the work you have completed in previous assessments. Therefore, you must complete the assessments in the order in which they are presented.

As a master’s-level health care practitioner, you may be expected to create budgets and implementation plans to ensure that initiatives to take advantage of economic opportunities for the organization are rolled out successfully and can be sustained over multiple years. Additionally, it is important to be able to envision how an initiative could be implemented in different contexts and for different purposes to ensure that the investment remains a viable and positive asset to your organization or care setting.

Instructions

Develop a thorough implementation plan for the economic initiative you proposed in Assessment 1.(See below)  Your plan must include a budget for material, staffing, and capital costs over the first five years of the initiative, as well as projected earnings. In addition, include:

• A plan and timeline for rolling out the initiative.
• An analysis of how the initiative may impact other aspects of the organization or care setting.
• An explanation how the initiative can remain viable in the face of environmental changes.
• Sufficient relevant and credible supporting evidence.

• Create a budget for expected costs and earnings over the first five years of your proposed initiative.

• • What are the expected material, staffing, and capital costs of your proposed initiative over its first five years?
  • What are the projected earnings for your organization or care setting over the first five years of your economic initiative?
  • How does this budget take into account the findings and feedback you received on your business case?
  • What assumptions are you basing your budget on?
• Create an implementation plan for your proposed initiative that enables achievement of quality or service improvements in an ethical and culturally equitable way.

• • Did you create a timeline for the rollout?
  • How will you work with relevant stakeholders to ensure that your economic initiative is implemented successfully and sustained?
  • How will you ensure that the rollout is conducted in an ethical and culturally equitable manner?
  • How will you ensure that the desired quality or service improvements your economic initiative will achieve are on track during and after implementation?
• Analyze the impact of your proposed initiative, once implemented, on other aspects of your organization or care setting and ways in which negative impacts could be mitigated.

• • What other aspects of your organization or care setting may be positively or negatively impacted by the implementation of your proposed initiative?
  • How will these other aspects of your organization or care setting be affected? (For example, increased workload on a testing department, borrowing of staff hours from another part of the care setting, or better communication with the community.)
  • How could you mitigate at least some of the negative effects on other aspects of your organization or care setting?
• Explain your strategies for ensuring that your proposed initiative can remain a viable asset to the organization or care setting in the face of dynamic environmental forces.

• • What are the environmental risks to your economic initiative?
  • How could your initiative, or aspects of it, still be a viable benefit to your organization or care setting if the environment shifts in unpredictable ways?
  • What strategies would you propose implementing to keep all, or a portion of, your initiative a viable net benefit to your organization or care setting?
• Justify the relevance and significance of the quantitative and qualitative economic, financial, and scholarly evidence you used throughout your plan to support your recommendations.

• • How is the evidence relevant to your organization or care setting?
  • How is the evidence relevant to your proposed economic initiative?
  • How does the evidence illustrate a solution that has been successful in the past?
  • How does the evidence illustrate that a recommendation is the best course of action for your situation and organization or care setting?
• Write concisely and directly, using active voice.

• • Proofread your document before you submit it to minimize errors that could distract readers and make it more difficult for them to focus on the substance of your implementation plan.
• Adhere to the rules of grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Example Assessment: You may use the following to give you an idea of what a Proficient or higher rating on the scoring guide would look like:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Assessment 3 Example [PDF].

 

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Your assessment should also meet the following requirements:

• Format: Format your implementation plan using current APA style. Be sure to include:

• • A title page and references page. An abstract is not required.
  • A running head on all pages.
  • Appropriate section headings.
• Length: Your implementation plan should be 6–7 pages in length, not including the title page and references page.
• Supporting evidence: Cite 3–5 authoritative and scholarly resources to support your implementation plan. Be sure that your sources include specific economic data.

 

 

Competencies Measured

By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment scoring guide criteria:

• Competency 1: Analyze the effects of financial and economic factors (such as cost-benefit, supply and demand, return on investment, and risks) in a health care system on patient care, services offered, and organizational structures and operation.

• • Create a budget for expected costs and earnings over the first five years of a proposed initiative.
  • Analyze the impact of a proposed initiative, once implemented, on other aspects of an organization or care setting and ways in which negative impacts could be mitigated.
• Competency 2: Develop ethical and culturally equitable solutions to economic problems within a health care organization in an effort to improve the quality of care and services offered.

• • Create an implementation plan for a proposed initiative that enables achievement of quality or service improvements in an ethical and culturally equitable way.
• Competency 3: Justify the qualitative and quantitative information used to guide economic decision making to stakeholders and colleagues.

• • Justify the relevance and significance of quantitative and qualitative economic, financial, and scholarly evidence used throughout an implementation plan to support recommendations.
• Competency 4: Develop ethical and culturally equitable economic strategies to address dynamic environmental forces and ensure the future security of an organization’s resources and its ability to provide quality care.

• •  Explain strategies for ensuring that a proposed economic initiative can remain a viable asset to an organization or care setting in the face of dynamic environmental forces.
• Competency 5: Produce clear, coherent, and professional written work, in accordance with Capella writing standards.

• • Write concisely and directly using active voice.
  • Adhere to the rules of grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Assessment 1

Proposing a New Initiative

The main objective of Faith Healthcare Center is to provide secure, safe, and high-quality care to patients and support and develop medical services for improved community health at affordable prices. Medication errors are common in healthcare facilities that hinder them from achieving quality care. The healthcare facility can minimize errors associated with medication and achieve patient safety by implementing a computerized physician order entry system (CPOE). This initiative could reduce costs associated with medication errors in the healthcare facility and promote economic efficiency at both micro and macro levels due to saving costs and correcting avoidable mistakes.

Last year, FHC witnessed 500 cases of medication errors. These cases could be reduced by implementing computerized physician order entry. Medication errors’ effects on healthcare facilities are broad. One of them is an increased cost due to unplanned prolonged hospitalization and treatment of the patient. In addition, the healthcare facility could be sued by the patient or their family for personal injury, which could cause the hospital to face substantial legal troubles (Poly et al., 2020). Additionally, it is also time-consuming to deal with errors, settlements, and litigation. The management team could spend money and time to create policies to reduce future medication errors instead of wasting resources on dealing with consequences. Lastly, medication errors could also impact the reputation and re-accreditation of the healthcare facility (Poly et al., 2020).

Once the computerized physician order entry system is implemented, medication errors could be reduced. Common medication errors at FHC include incorrect dosage calculation, wrong dosage form, and failure to adjust dosage according to the patient’s conditions (Poly et al., 2020).. Computerized physician order entry effectively manages medication matters in various ways to uphold cultural and ethical concerns. The system checks for problems associated with the drug, such as drug-drug interaction and allergies. In addition, the system makes sure that the order is complete and legible, and it has all the needed information, e.g., dosage form and the method of intake (Poly et al., 2020). The system also provides dosage adjustment calculations based on clinical features of the patient, such as renal function and weight. Lastly, the system provides the prescriber with the latest information concerning the drug (Poly et al., 2020).

The economic and demographic data highlight the need to provide a safe environment for all patients, increase overall recovery rates, and widen the range of services to meet customer demands and needs without exorbitant costs (Poly et al., 2020). Implementing the computerized physician entry will assist the healthcare facility with its vision of delivering quality care and achieving patient safety.

Additional information for analysis would include the rates of medication error losses. According to Donaldson et al. (2017), there are more than 100,000 reports of medical errors in the United States each year. 41% of Americans report having been involved in medical errors, and more than seven million of people are directly and indirectly affected by medication errors each year (York et al., 2019). Thus, the demand is high. Each year, the United States spends more than $40 billion on patients damaged by medication errors, which creates a notable burden on the macroeconomic level (WHO, 2017).

The computerized physician order entry system is convenient for the healthcare facility because it reduces errors, enhances patient safety, and saves money of both the patient and the country in general. The system has tools that automatically check medication allergies, drug interaction, and other related issues. Thus, healthcare professionals in the facility will be able to produce standardized, legible, and complete orders that support recovery.

References

Donaldson, L. J., Kelley, E. T., Dhingra-Kumar, N., Kieny, M. P., & Sheikh, A. (2017). Medication without harm: WHO’s third global patient safety challenge. The Lancet, 389(10080), 1680-1681.

Poly, T. N., Islam, M. M., Yang, H. C., & Li, Y. C. J. (2020). Appropriateness of overridden alerts in computerized physician order entry: Systematic review. JMIR Medical Informatics, 8(7), e15653.

World Health Organization. (2017). WHO launches global effort to halve medication-related errors in 5 years. https://www.who.int/news/item/29-03-2017-who-launches-global-effort-to-halve-medication-related-errors-in-5-years

York, J. B., Cardoso, M. Z., Azuma, D. S., Beam, K. S., Binney Jr, G. G., & Weingart, S. N. (2019). Computerized physician order entry in the neonatal intensive care unit: A narrative review. Applied Clinical Informatics, 10(03), 487-494.

 

 

 

Assessment 2

Business Case

Faith Healthcare Center, my healthcare facility, strives to provide high-quality care to patients and the general public. However, an increasing number of patients with chronic diseases obstruct this vision. It has resulted in a high patient-nurse ratio, which could be harmful because it leads to increased burnout, which can lead to medical errors and other problems. As a result, the healthcare facility intends to establish an independent department for chronic preventive services, which will address the hospital’s high patient-nurse ratio and improve care quality. To that end, the purpose of this business case is to evaluate various potential economic opportunities and risks associated with this new venture for the hospital and the community over five years, as well as ethical solutions to address the risks associated with the new venture. The paper will then suggest methods for mitigating the risks associated with establishing a new chronic services department and ethical approaches for maximizing and controlling costs.

The Appeal of the Proposed Initiative

My healthcare facility’s situation emanates from a densely populated area where most residents are older adults prone to chronic diseases. Based on this, the current initiative to establish an independent chronic services department could become economically profitable because the initiative’s market target segment is easily accessible in this region (Bleser et al., 2019).

Potentials Related to the Proposed Economic Venture

My hospital comes from an area with a high prevalence of chronic diseases. To better understand the opportunities, an economic and environmental assessment took place. Patients with minor or acute exacerbations of multiple chronic ailments can emanate from the chronic services department, which is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The 24-hour chronic services department allows for a reduction in the patient-nurse ratio. It is because services to patients with chronic disease exacerbations in hospitals are handled by the General Practitioner (GP), resulting in delays, which leads to increased risks of medical errors and higher operating costs (Bleser et al., 2019). Minor or acute exacerbations of chronic disease cases can thus aid the chronic services department, where nurses and care providers can provide high-quality care without burdening cases from other departments.

Furthermore, resources previously used for some nurses’ posts for the new department posts will allow for 24-hour services for out-patients and in-patients suffering from minor or acute exacerbations of chronic diseases. As the complexity of patients discharged to the ward grows, no steps help reduce the average length of stay on the ward. However, the consistent availability of specified care to these patients without interruption enables patients with chronic diseases to receive a sooner discharge from the hospital than without this care level.

In this region, most patients prefer primary health centers to emergency departments, owing to the long hours that emergency departments keep. Patients with minor and acute exacerbations of chronic diseases, on the other hand, will be able to receive care 24/7 at a lower cost than primary health centers, thanks to the chronic services department. According to Ide et al. (2017), with this availability advantage, the chronic services department could seize a significant market share in the specialized care segment.

 

 

The Dangers of the Proposed Initiative

The competitor analysis generated a potential risk associated with introducing chronic services departments. Three primary health clinics helped to identify in the vicinity of my hospital facility, with one of these primary health clinics operating an Urgent Care Centre (UCC), which primarily handles urgent care cases. This risk can jeopardize the new initiative’s economic prospects. It includes treating patients who have minor or acute exacerbations of chronic diseases. Furthermore, according to Bleser et al. (2019), because the chronic services department will be dealing with a high volume of patients with various chronic diseases at various stages of progression, the care personnel will be subjected to demanding working conditions, which can lead to errors such as medication errors.

The Proposed Initiative’s Cost-Benefit Analysis

The proposed initiative’s cost-benefit analysis takes into account the current values of the estimated benefits and costs over the next five years. To calculate the initiative’s costs, I used a 10% value discount rate, which I calculated as the estimated investment rate of return on the present value of the cost of capital. The capital expenditures associated with establishing the new chronic service department include the necessary equipment and furnishings and the minimal construction of the required structure (Ekwaru et al., 2021). Based on current economic conditions, these costs are estimated to be $500,000. Operating expenses, such as personnel salaries, where the projections show that the chronic department will have six staff members, including two doctors, three nurses, and two medical assistants, will be $450,000 per year in the first year of operation and will rise at the current rate of US salary growth rate of 1.2 percent per year in 2022. (Ekwaru et al., 2021). Other operating expenses such as gas, electricity, water, insurance (including building, business liability, equipment, and staff insurance), and marketing and management expenses could rise by 6% per year as patient volume rises following the introduction of the new department. Following the cost-benefit analysis, the current cost value over the next five years could go to $6.646 million, with a value discount rate of 10%.

The benefits calculations encompass the amount paid by each patient and the number of patients with acute or minor exacerbations of chronic diseases who would visit the chronic services department (Bertram et al., 2018). Based on the typical number of patients per week in most primary health clinics (357) and the average fee per patient visit ($189), the projected income during the first years of operation will be $3,508,596.According to the Economic Policy Institute (2018), income can rise by 5.6 percent per year over the next five years, based on the average national income rate in 2021. The current benefit value is estimated at $17,658,782.5 using a 10% discount rate and projected income over five years. After subtracting the present value of benefits from the present value of total costs, the estimated net benefits over five years are $15,011,882. The current venture can be determined to be economically viable based on the positive net benefit.

Cost-Cutting and Benefit-Maximizing

To avoid high utility bills, gas, electricity, water, internet, and phone usage will receive an assessment twice a year. In addition, to reduce maintenance costs, staff in chronic service departments will ensure that equipment is operated with care and maintained in excellent condition. To reduce waste, staff will be encouraged to use office supplies cautiously. On the downside, it is evident that stringent cost-cutting measures can harm personnel, affecting their performance and, as a result, the quality of care provided. To that end, it is critical to ensure that all cost-cutting actions are culturally and ethically appropriate and involve personnel in decision-making regarding these measures.

Offering high-quality care to patients suffering from acute or minor exacerbations of chronic diseases will aid in patient retention and loyalty. They intend to return to the department due to the high-quality care they previously received. To that end, meticulous documentation of the care process forms a necessity. Furthermore, being culturally competent in the chronic department will allow nurses and other care providers to provide culturally sensitive services by listening to and encouraging patients to share their opinions and views about their care (Ide et al., 2017). It will ensure efficient use of resources and high-quality care, allowing the chronic services department to grow financially.

Competence in Ethical and Cultural Issues the Proposed Initiative’s Considerations

Chronic diseases are standard worldwide, particularly among ethnic minority groups, where they cause increased morbidity and mortality. More significant financial burdens and activity restrictions influence the prevalence of chronic diseases in minority groups (Yuen et al., 2018). To that end, a greater emphasis on cultural and ethical barriers is critical, as the number of people at risk for chronic diseases or experiencing their symptoms increases in these groups. To address the issue of financial constraints, the proposed initiative will charge $189 for services, as opposed to the average fee in primary health clinics, which is $200.Furthermore, the staff in charge of the chronic services department will receive cultural competency training in order to improve health outcomes.

Finally, the proposed solution disadvantages no group. The initiative, on the other hand, promotes equality. It addresses chronic disease cases from disadvantaged minority groups and financially able individuals, ensuring everyone has access to high-quality health care at a low and affordable cost. Furthermore, the proposed initiative will positively impact community health care delivery outcomes in that patient with chronic diseases will not have to travel far or overcrowd the general area to obtain services, saving time, which is critical in a medical emergency.

 

 

References

Bertram, M. Y., Sweeny, K., Lauer, J. A., Chisholm, D., Sheehan, P., Rasmussen, B., & Deane, S. (2018). Investing in non-communicable diseases: Estimating the return on investment for prevention and treatment services. The Lancet, 391(10134), 2071-2078. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30665-2

Bleser, W. K., Saunders, R. S., Winfield, L., Japinga, M., Smith, N., Kaufman, B. G., & McClellan, M. (2019). ACO serious illness care: Survey and case studies depict current challenges and future opportunities. Health Affairs, 38(6), 1011-1020. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00013

Ekwaru, J. P., Ohinmaa, A., Dabravolskaj, J., Maximova, K., & Veugelers, P. J. (2021). Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of school-based health promotion programs for chronic disease prevention. European Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 1183-1189. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab130

Ide, H., Takeuchi, K., Fujita, S., & Takabayashi, K. (2017). Estimating future demand and supply of healthcare services based on a patient access area model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1367. doi:10.3390/ijerph14111367

Yuen, T., Carter, M. T., Szatmari, P., & Ungar, W. J. (2018). Cost-effectiveness of universal or high-risk screening compared to surveillance monitoring in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(9), 2968-2979. doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3571-4

See excel sheet