NURS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal
NURS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal
NURS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal makes sure that the organization or team follows the requirements regarding staff duties, quality metrics, and patient outcomes.
Benchmark Underperformance Impact
Benchmark underperformance drives severe consequences for health organizations and consequences alike. It essentially means the failure to meet Hb1ac and Foot testing outcomes in a lack of managing adequate monitoring and diabetic patients. This means increased healthcare pricing, decreased patient satisfaction, and bad health sector results.
To maintain quality care for diabetic patients, the need for creating a relevant policy arises. Making this possible through evidence-based practices and guidelines is credible. The practice guidelines and proposed policies are for stakeholder groups, patients, regulatory bodies, insurers, patients, and healthcare bodies.
Summary of Practice Guidelines and New Policy
This organizational policy addresses shortfalls in care plans. These proven guidelines ensure the implementation of Mercy Medical Center’s Hgba1c testing.
The practice guidelines and policy proposals are not only for hba1c and foot evaluations but for awareness campaigns and staff training as well. This involves general knowledge of hba1c and foot assessments and training programs for those who are diagnosed with glycated haemoglobin.
A good policy would include environmental factors as well. The implementation and development of these factors include healthcare services, insurance coverage, and cultural beliefs. The policy proposal Mercy emphasizes policy professors and care law to make sure that the assigned benchmark metric is met.
Impact of Factors
Mercy Medical Center must have a usual hba1c and foot check to find out if the practices are applied according to the plan. This reduces the risk of complications and leads to improved federal healthcare. Another point it emphasizes is the guidelines for the enhancement of care quality and reducing the costs of hba1c and foot testing.
Many adopt these proven guidelines to enhance aimed benchmark performance as well as hospital readmission reduction programs. The practice guidelines are as crucial as access to care for foot accessories and hba1c tests.
Ethical Proven Practice Guidelines
It is crucial to ponder over ethical principles like beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. The delivery of quality based on these elements does not tackle the standardized metric underperformance but assures quality diabetes care and positive results for everyone involved.
These practice guidelines include patient education, regular monitoring, interdisciplinary care, and patient-centered care. These proven guidelines help establish a structure beneficial for the implementation of these tips for diabetic patients as well as for other elements.
This procedure offers points that are significant to consider and gives important solutions for developing and applying these important tips. This method reduces poor patient outcomes and improves quality care.
References
Abràmoff, M. D., Tobey, D., & Char, D. S. (2020). Lessons learned about autonomous AI: Finding a safe, efficacious, and ethical path through the development process. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 214, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.02.022
Basu, S., Garg, S., Sharma, N., & Singh, Mm. (2019). Improving the assessment of medication adherence: Challenges and considerations with a focus on low-resource settings. Tzu Chi Medical Journal, 31(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_177_18
Bevan, G., Evans, A., & Nuti, S. (2018). Reputations count: why benchmarking performance is improving health care across the world. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 14(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133117000561
Brown, A. F., Ma, G. X., Miranda, J., Eng, E., Castille, D., Brockie, T., Jones, P., Airhihenbuwa, C. O., Farhat, T., Zhu, L., & Trinh-Shevrin, C. (2019). Structural interventions to reduce and eliminate health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 109(S1), S72–S78. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2018.304844
Carmienke, S., Fink, A., Baumert, J., Heidemann, C., Du, Y., Frese, T., & Heise, M. (2021). Participation in structured diabetes self-management education programs and its associations with self-management behavior – a nationwide population-based study. Patient Education and Counseling.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.017
Coe, I. R., Wiley, R., & Bekker, L.-G. (2019). Organizational best practices towards gender equality in science and medicine. The Lancet, 393(10171), 587–593.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)33188-x
Embuai, S., Tuasikal, H., & Siauta, M. (2019). Effect of foot exercise and care on peripheral vascular status in patients with diabetes mellitus. Repository.unar.ac.id.
https://repository.unar.ac.id/jspui/handle/123456789/558
Gottesman, O., Johansson, F., Komorowski, M., Faisal, A., Sontag, D., Doshi-Velez, F., & Celi, L. A. (2019). Guidelines for reinforcement learning in healthcare. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 16–18.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0310-5
Jindal, D., Roy, A., Ajay, V. S., Yadav, S. K., Prabhakaran, D., & Tandon, N. (2019). Strategies for stakeholder engagement and uptake of new intervention: Experience from the state-wide implementation of health technology for NCD care in Tripura, India. Global Heart, 14(2), 165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gheart.2019.06.002
Juntunen, J. K., Halme, M., Korsunova, A., & Rajala, R. (2018). Strategies for integrating stakeholders into sustainability innovation: A configurational perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(3), 331–355.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12481
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 0007650321106655. Sagepub.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595
Li, X., Krumholz, H. M., Yip, W., Cheng, K. K., De Maeseneer, J., Meng, Q., Mossialos, E., Li, C., Lu, J., Su, M., Zhang, Q., Xu, D. R., Li, L., Normand, S.-L. T., Peto, R., Li, J., Wang, Z., Yan, H., Gao, R., & Chunharas, S. (2020). Quality of primary health care in China: Challenges and recommendations. The Lancet, 395(10239), 1802–1812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30122-7
Loureiro, S. M. C., Romero, J., & Bilro, R. G. (2019). Stakeholder engagement in co-creation processes for innovation: A systematic literature review and case study. Journal of Business
Research.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.038
Phelan, A., McCormack, B., Dewing, J., Brown, D., Cardiff, S., Cook, N., Dickson, C., Kmete, S., Lorber, M., Magowan, R., McCance, T., Skovdahl, K., Štiglic, G., & van Lieshout, F. (2020). Review of developments in person-centred healthcare. International Practice Development Journal, 10(Suppl2), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.19043/ipdj.10suppl2.003
Poger, J. M., Mayer, V., Duru, O. K., Nauman, B., Holderness, H., Warren, N., Vasquez, C., Bibi, S., Rasmussen-Torvik, L. J., Hosseinian, Z., Shi, L., Wallace, J., Goytia, C. N., Horowitz, C. R., & Kraschnewski, J. L. (2020). Network engagement in action. Medical Care, 58, S66–S74.
https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000001264
Tan, H. Q. M., Chin, Y. H., Ng, C. H., Liow, Y., Devi, M. K., Khoo, C. M., & Goh, L. H. (2020). Multidisciplinary team approach to diabetes. An outlook on providers’ and patients’ perspectives. Primary Care Diabetes, 14(5), 545–551.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2020.05.012
van Crevel, R., & Critchley, J. A. (2021). The interaction of diabetes and tuberculosis: Translating research to policy and practice. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 6(1), 8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed6010008
Top Grades Guarrantied
