Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data

Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data

 

Associated Infections Data

The purpose of this assignment is to examine health care data on hospital-associated infections and determine the best methods for presenting the data to stakeholders. Use the scenario below and the “Hospital Associated Infections Data” Excel spreadsheet to complete the assignment.

Scenario

You have been tasked with displaying Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital quality measures data for a 5-year period on four quality measures at your site. After examining the data, identify trends and determine the best way to present the actionable information to stakeholders.

ORDER COMPREHENSIVE NUR-630 SOLUTIONS NOW

Assignment

Create a 10-15 slide PowerPoint presenting the data to the stakeholders. Address the following in your PowerPoint:

1. What conclusions can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period?
2. What trends do you see for each quality measure over the 5-year period?
3. When comparing each quality measure, is the quality measure better than, worse than, or no different from the national benchmark over time?
4. Based on your examination of the data, which of the quality measures should you prioritize and why?
5. Develop a quality improvement metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience relating to the identified area of opportunity.
6. Explain how you would monitor the metric and use collected data for improvement.

Include a title slide, references slide, and comprehensive speaker notes.

Refer to the resource, “Creating Effective PowerPoint Presentations,” located in the Student Success Center, for additional guidance on completing this assignment in the appropriate style.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competency:

MSN Emphasis in Leadership in Health Care Systems

6.6 Develop and monitor continuous quality improvement metrics and measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience.

AttachmentsNUR-630-RS-HospitalAssociatedInfectionsData.xlsx

nur630-rubric_for_Hospital_associated_infection_data

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points

NUR-630 NUR-630-O500 Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data 120.0

Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) 3: Satisfactory (88.00%) 4: Good (92.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 100.0%
Conclusions 8.0% Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are not present. Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are present, but the conclusions are not supported with data. Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are present. Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are appropriate. The conclusions are mostly supported with data. Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are appropriate. The conclusions are supported by the data. Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data

Trends 8.0% A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is not present. A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present, but lacks detail or is incomplete. A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present. A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present. The trends discussed are mostly accurate. A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present. The trends discussed are accurate.

Quality Measure and National Benchmarks 6.0% A comparison of each quality measure to the national benchmark is not present. A comparison of each quality measure to the national benchmark is present, but some comparisons are not accurate. NA NA A comparison of each quality measure to the national benchmark is present and all comparisons are accurate.

Prioritization of Quality Measures 6.0% Prioritization of Quality Measures Prioritization of the quality measures is present, but is not appropriate based on the data. NA NA Prioritization of the quality measures is present and is appropriate based on the data.

Quality Improvement Metric (C6.6) 6.0% A quality improvement metric is not present. A quality improvement metric is present, but some portions may not be appropriate for the quality measure. A quality improvement metric is present. A quality improvement metric is present and detailed. The metric is mostly appropriate for the quality measure. A quality improvement metric is present and thorough. The metric is appropriate for the quality measure.

Monitoring the Quality Improvement Metric 6.0% An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is not present. An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present, but lacks detail or is incomplete. An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present. An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present and detailed. An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present and thorough.

Presentation of Content 30.0% The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources. The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea. Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data

Layout 10.0% The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) 10.0% Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data

Total Weightage 100%

ORDER COMPREHENSIVE NUR-630 SOLUTIONS NOW

NUR-630-RS-Hospital Associated Infections Data

Hospital Name	Measure Name	Measure ID	Measure Start Date	Measure End Date	National Benchmark	Score	Footnote
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from colon surgery (SSI: Colon)	HAI_3_SIR	01/01/2015	30/09/2015	2.548	3.555
ABC Health	Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI)	HAI_1_SIR	01/01/2015	30/09/2015	3.422	3.422
ABC Health	Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI)	HAI_2_SIR	01/01/2015	30/09/2015	1.231	0.466
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy (SSI: Hysterectomy)	HAI_4_SIR	01/01/2015	30/09/2015	2.703	4.608
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from colon surgery (SSI: Colon)	HAI_3_SIR	01/01/2014	31/12/2014	2.319	2.487
ABC Health	Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI)	HAI_1_SIR	01/01/2014	31/12/2014	3.063	3.063
ABC Health	Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI)	HAI_2_SIR	01/01/2014	31/12/2014	1.089	0.567
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy (SSI: Hysterectomy)	HAI_4_SIR	01/01/2014	31/12/2014	2.512	3.697
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from colon surgery (SSI: Colon)	HAI_3_SIR	01/03/2013	30/11/2013	2.219	2.219
ABC Health	Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI)	HAI_1_SIR	01/03/2013	30/11/2013	3.128	3.062
ABC Health	Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI)	HAI_2_SIR	01/03/2013	30/11/2013	Not available	Not available	4 – Data suppressed by CMS for one or more quarters.
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy (SSI: Hysterectomy)	HAI_4_SIR	01/03/2013	30/11/2013	2.094	2.094
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from colon surgery (SSI: Colon)	HAI_3_SIR	01/01/2012	31/12/2012	2.136	0.174
ABC Health	Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI)	HAI_1_SIR	01/01/2012	31/12/2012	2.089	2.203
ABC Health	Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI)	HAI_2_SIR	01/01/2012	31/12/2012	0.827	0.827
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy (SSI: Hysterectomy)	HAI_4_SIR	01/01/2012	31/12/2012	2.132	2.132
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from colon surgery (SSI: Colon)	HAI_3_SIR	01/01/2011	31/12/2011	2.234	0.273
ABC Health	Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI)	HAI_1_SIR	01/01/2011	31/12/2011	2.234	2.845
ABC Health	Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI)	HAI_2_SIR	01/01/2011	31/12/2011	1.879	2.814
ABC Health	Surgical Site Infection from abdominal hysterectomy (SSI: Hysterectomy)	HAI_4_SIR	01/01/2011	31/12/2011	2.133	1.148

Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data