MHC 6303 5-2

Running Head: PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 6

The emergency department is a significantly dynamic environment, and the stakeholders have to be people who love action and are ready to respond to any kind of emergency. They have to possess the ability to respond to that on the basis of care-based practices. Organizations which have effective emergency departments are able to save more lives and address various medical challenges a lot better than those which do not (Ahmed, Khan, Khan, & Dasgupta, 2013).

The emergency department has to be staffed with a ground of individuals who are well-rounded since a host of needs could arise and someone may be needed to address them in one way or the other. Problems at the emergency department are clear and easy to identify (Pflueger, 2015). For instance, one just have to consider patient dissatisfaction, long waiting times, several patients having to leave without having the chance to see a physician. Many of these issues are caused by a frustrated staff (Chen, Rosen, Borzecki, & Shwartz, 2016).

Patients are more satisfied whenever there are process-improvement changes. The improvement of the flow of patients leaves everyone satisfied. The patients are able to see the medical practitioners quickly enough, and the practitioners feel motivated and empowered by the kind of successes that are achieved with enhanced management (Pflueger, 2015).

Balanced Scorecard

A balanced scorecard refers to the strategic performance management tool that is semi-structured and standardized to help keep the stakeholders on track. A balanced scorecard is essential since it helps in running the organization smoothly. With a balanced scorecard, the stakeholders are able to set the vision and mission of the organization. They are also in a position to establish strategic goals, set measurement indicators for each of the goals, as well as determine and measure the targets (Gordon & Richardson, 2012).

The first step towards building a proper balanced scorecard is where a strategy map, or strategic linkages, are determined. The core strategic objectives are determined, their cause and effect relationships, as well as their priorities. Typically, that may take about 5 hours to complete, although this is determined by whether there is a proper strategic document/thinking within the organization in question (Chen et al., 2016).

The second step is where the existing data is harvested i.e. the determination of indicators for success. These are what are called performance indicators. This second step completes the skeleton of what is to become the balanced scorecard. The strategic objectives, the cause-and-effect relationships, and the overall performance indicators which are clear (Perkins, Grey, & Remmers, 2014).

The third step is where the core processes are considered in order to facilitate the understanding of their impact in performance against the core strategic objectives. This helps in telling which of the strategic objectives are likely to be successful, and which could be at risk. Those under risk could be due to lack of necessary processes, and hence the need to assess if the processes in question could be facilitated. By the third step, it ought to be possible to tell the performance gap and analyze the portfolio to tell what could be its gap closing potential (Ahmed et al., 2013).

Since the third step has already translated strategies into action, the fourth step is where the leadership team executes strategic management, and this is as a post-tactical management. Step four is where the procedures, steps, and the governance models are used in an endeavor to make the scorecard way more substantial. The final step is where the scorecard is launched. This is where the teams start using the scorecard (Gordon & Richardson, 2012).

Categories of Measurement

The first category of measurement relates to the patient safety and the quality of care. This means that the patient ought not to suffer more health challenges than the ones which took them to the hospital in the first place. They should get the quality of care that they deserve with respect to the kind of financial and time commitment they have put in place. The next issue is the determination of whether the kind of undertakings being accomplished really impact on the health outcomes in a positive manner. This is crucial since hospital resources are scarce and hence the need to invest them on what matters the most (Perkins et al., 2014).

The third issue is the determination of whether the law and regulations have been met, or even surpassed. This helps the organization stay away from legal challenges which may consequently derail operations in a significant manner. The fourth aspect is making sure that the economic value by the patients can be readily and accurately assessed and determined. “Economic value” is that measure of benefits which a service avails to economic agents; and in this case, the economic agent is the client (Demir, 2014; Pflueger, 2015).

Three Specific Performance Measures Per Category

The aspect of patient safety is to be evaluated using indicators such as safety of care, patient experience, as well as timeliness of the care in question. With respect to this, positive impact on health outcomes, mortality, readmissions, and effectiveness of care are used as indicators (Perkins et al., 2014).

Meeting legal requirements is to be evaluated via three specific measurements. These include compliance with licenses, tenancy agreements, and leases. The second one is compliance with contracts, and lastly having relevant insurances. The third measure is important in regard to displaying current liability insurance and the issues being covered (Ahmed et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2016).

The clients would be sensitive about cost in case they feel they do not get value for the money they pay at the facility. Therefore, the measure of sensitivity is able to tell if value is being rendered or not. The second aspect is benchmarking with the average market figures. A firm ought to charge just about the same amount being charged by others in the field, unless there is justification for expensive services. The third financial measure is the efficiency ratios. This is an analysis of how the organization is utilizing its assets internally (Demir, 2014; Pflueger, 2015).

Conclusion

If this were to be the organization as a whole under analysis, the performance measures are likely to have remained unchanged, and this is because the issues discussed cut-across. Patient’s safety is of essence, and hence the need to understand the issues which impact on the health outcomes in a positive manner. Of course, stakeholders are supposed to understand how the legal framework is met or even surpassed since legal challenges may derail operations in all departments and even at all levels. Therefore, performance measures are likely to have remained the same.

References

Ahmed, K., Khan, N., Khan, M.S., & Dasgupta, P. (2013, June). Development and content validation of a surgical safety checklist for operating theatres that use robotic technology. BJU International, 111(7), 1161-1174. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12010

Chen, Q., Rosen, A.K., Borzecki, A., & Shwartz, M. (2016, Dec.). Using harm-based weights for the AHRQ patient safety for selected indicators composite (PSI-90): Does it affect assessment of hospital performance and financial penalties in veterans’ health administration hospitals? Health Services Research, 51(6), 2140-2157. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12596

Demir, E. (2014, Oct.). A decision support tool for predicting patients at risk of readmission: A comparison of classification trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines. Decision Sciences, 45(5), 849-880. DOI: 10.1111/deci.12094

Gordon, J., & Richardson, E. (2012). Continuous improvement using balanced scorecard in healthcare. American Journal of Health Sciences, 3(3), 185-188. doi: http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.19030/ajhs.v3i3.7136

Perkins, M., Grey, A., & Remmers, H. (2014). What do we really mean by "balanced scorecard"? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2), 148-169. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/1667910740?accountid=87314

Pflueger, D. (2015). Accounting for quality: on the relationship between accounting and quality improvement in healthcare. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-13. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0769-4