Dashboard Metrics Evaluation  

Healthcare organizations across the globe are making every effort to enhance quality and safety performances to maintain their pace in healthcare systems. The majority of these organizations are endeavoring to create quality and safety programs wherein they improve their performances to maximize with the national, state, and federal standards that have been established for the healthcare system. One such parameter in healthcare organizations is the performance dashboard. Performance dashboards are the applications that offer information regarding the prevailing practices and the quality and safety measures, which is beneficial for healthcare organizations to determine whether the wanted outcomes are met and offer significant actions to continue enhancing the quality of healthcare and safety for the consumers (Helminski et al., 2022). This evaluation is centered on the performance of the Vila Health Organization’s dashboard indicators against the national, state, or federal standards and thereafter the loopholes of the organization will be elaborated upon. Additionally, an analysis will be provided to emphasize the ramifications of not achieving the intended parameters. Moreover, the underperformance of a specific benchmark will be shared, and how it can be addressed to improve the quality and performance of the organization. Lastly, ethical and sustainable actions will be presented that can be used by stakeholders to address the concerned benchmark underperformance. 

Evaluation of Dashboard Metrics with Benchmarks Set 

The dashboard metrics for this evaluation are owned by Mercy Medical Center (MMC) which is among the top-performing healthcare organizations in the region and thus they must utilize the information in order to come up with the best-practice strategies aimed at enhancing the quality and performance of the healthcare organization.

The metrics which are particularly chosen from a diabetes dashboard were eye examination, foot examination, and HBA1c, which have been assessed in four quarters for the years 2019 and 2020. In the last quarter, the majority of the patients are female (62%) and the age group of 40-64 is the highest number of admitted patients (38%). Around 63% of the patient group has been White and just 6% were Asians.  The statistics based on the measurements of MMC reveal that in the year 2019, 200 eye examinations were done that rose to 232 in the year 2020. Whereas for the foot tests, the figure increased from 230 to 235 in both the years respectively. For HBA1c, the count drastically rose from 210 to 272, which is a warning sign for the Mercy Medical Center. 

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation 

This dashboard information illustrates high variations in foot checks and the HBA1c tests.While a slight change is seen in the number of eye tests done in both years.These tests are necessary in diabetic patients and the information is crucial for MMC in order to enhance the quality of health care services. The benchmark for the foot test as established by National Healthcare Quality and Disparity Report (NHQDR) is 84% annually. Nevertheless, at Mercy Medical Center, only about 40% of the patients underwent foot examinations in 2019 and nearly around 42% in 2020. For HBA1c levels, from Mercy Medical Center, the findings were 37.3% in 2019 for the tests that were performed and in 2020 the percentage reached up to 48.3% compared to the national standard that claims 79.5% of people who are performing HBA1c tests at least twice annually. The standard deviation for eye tests is 75.2% unlike MMC that had 35.5% tests in 2019 and approximately 41% in 2020 (AHRQ, n.d.). The comparison of data between national standards and Mercy Medical Center indicates an average distance therefore, the hospital must enhance performance by improving its quality. Missing details that could have enhanced the analysis and assisted the organization in appropriately responding to the issue at hand are the causes of the shortfall of the organization in terms of decreased diabetes examination in the MMC compared to national benchmarks.

Analysis of the Consequences of Not Meeting the Benchmarks  

The key areas where the national standards have differed with the MMC data are two specific areas; examination of the foot and HBA1c values.  These below-average performances by the organization have several patient-related consequences.They are; high rates of hospital readmissions and morbidities and mortalities for the patients may also cause the loss of the reputation of the organization as a healthcare organization and the flow of patients to the organization. Because of an insufficient amount of tests needed for diabetic patients, patients can receive incorrect diagnosis, treatment, and control of their illnesses. These can lead to negative results and ultimately contribute to higher readmissions for patients and high healthcare expenditure for patients as well as for healthcare organizations because under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, the high-readmission rates healthcare organization are penalized for decreased performance and quality (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2023). 

 NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation 

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation Another outcome would be higher morbidity and mortality rate. Proper foot and legs examination along with regular HBA1c tests helps healthcare professionals in early identification and treatment of the disease through proper interventions. HBA1c is a biomarker for diabetic diagnosis while early and regular foot examination avoids the development of diabetic foot ulcers (Kaiafa et al., 2020; Song & Chamber, 2023).Insufficient tests and examination can result in poor quality of care, late diagnosis, and treatment, and eventually lead to patients’ death.Finally, the hospital and patients can suffer from financial strains due to expensive costs related to the readmission rates and high morbidities. These repercussions have different meanings for the patients, the organization, and the teams. Because of poor quality and unsatisfactory patient outcomes, patients can experience issues of restricted healthcare access and decreased trust in the organization, and ultimately, the diseases can worsen. Hospitals and teams can experience levels of dissatisfaction, frustration, and diminished reputation in the healthcare industry.

Evaluation of the Underperformed Benchmark 

The national benchmark for foot examination and HBA1c test is significantly higher than the data from MMC. This indicates that according to the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, there is immense importance of these two tests in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diabetes. The HBA1c test acts as an indicator of glycemic control in diabetic as well as non-diabetic patients. It is a reliable measure that not only depicts the state of hyperglycemia but also identifies the associated risks of diabetes and its complications. The results will help the interprofessional team to develop effective measures for the patients’ conditions (CDC, 2022).  A study on the HBA1c test through point-of-care testing concluded that regular checkups of blood glucose testing, especially HBA1c resulted in effective patient outcomes whereby patients shared high satisfaction levels (Smits et al., 2022). This indicates that HBA1c testing has positive outcomes on the appropriate diagnosis and management of diabetes. This will eventually improve the quality of healthcare and organizational performance against national benchmarks.  

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation 

Another benchmark that holds importance in diabetes management is foot examination. Diabetic foot is one of the serious complications that is encountered by diabetic patients. NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation. This complication can lead to disability and even death in cases where early signs are not recognized. For this purpose, a foot examination is imperative. Recognition of early signs will reduce the risks of serious complications for the patient thus improving the quality of care (Zhao et al., 2023). Healthcare organizations that meet the national benchmark of foot examinations are more likely to improve patients’ quality of life and their organizational performance.  Ethical and Sustainable Actions to Address Benchmark Underperformance To address the underperformance of these benchmarks, MMC must take appropriate actions. These actions should be built on ethical principles and must be sustainable for lasting the changes for a longer period. Ethical actions are important as they will promote the control and management of diabetes for patients by addressing ethical dilemmas, providing patient-centered care, and improving the overall quality of life. The ethical principles that work in healthcare settings are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Autonomy is defined as patients’ right to make informed choices and are allowed to use their capacity for their health. 

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation 

Beneficence is described as an obligation for healthcare providers to work for the benefit of the patients and their families. Non-maleficence is about not harming the consumers and justice is to make actions and healthcare fair for every individual (Varkey, 2020). Some of the actions that must be taken in terms of diabetes screening to improve quality and performance are:   

• Patients must be informed about the importance of getting the tests done. Adequate information should be provided related to the importance, benefits, and disadvantages of not getting screened (Liang et al., 2022). This follows the ethical principle of autonomy and will become a sustainable action as patients will be able to make informed choices at every stage of their lives.  
• Effective education and training of nurses are essential to creating awareness among the population for timely and regular screening of the HBA1c levels and foot examinations. NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation. This action falls under the ethical principles of beneficence and justice. Staff education will eventually benefit patients in receiving high-quality care as well as education to improve their life choices related to healthcare (Cheraghi et al., 2023). Moreover, it will be fair for every individual as the same knowledge will be disseminated throughout the group.   

Conclusion  

Overall, the comparison of the dashboard metrics of any healthcare organization with national standards is crucial to determine the shortcomings within the organization.

This data of underperformance will assist in enhancing the benchmarks through effective, ethical, and sustainable steps. In this analysis, the underperformance of the MMC organization was detected and effective steps were taken to enhance the quality of healthcare and organizational performance. This will ultimately enhance patient outcomes and organizations can achieve reputation and growth in the healthcare industry.

References 

AHRQ. (n.d.). National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports (NHQDR). NHQDR Data Tools | AHRQ Data Tools. Retrieved from. 

 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Retrieved from. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/acuteinpatientpps/readmissions-reduction-program  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). All about your A1C. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/managing/managing-blood-sugar/a1c.html  Cheraghi, R., Valizadeh, L., Zamanzadeh, V., Hassankhani, H., & Jafarzadeh, A. (2023). Clarification of ethical principle of the beneficence in nursing care: An integrative review. BMC Nursing, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01246-4  

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation 

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). https://doi.org/10.2196/34894 

 Kaiafa, G., Veneti, S., Polychronopoulos, G., Pilalas, D., Daios, S., Kanellos, I., Didangelos, T., Pagoni, S., & Savopoulos, C. (2020). Is hba1c an ideal biomarker of well-controlled diabetes? Postgraduate Medical Journal, 97(1148), 380–383. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138756  

Liang, Z., Xu, M., Liu, G., Zhou, Y., & Howard, P. (2022). Patient-centered care and patient autonomy: Doctors’ views in Chinese hospitals. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00777-w  

Smits, M., Hopstaken, R., Terhaag, L., de Kort, G., & Giesen, P. (2022). Early experiences with quality-assured hba1c and professional glucose point-of-care testing in general practice: A cross-sectional observational study among patients, nurses and doctors. BMC Nursing, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00969-0  

Song, K., & Chambers, A. R. (2023). Diabetic foot care. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553110/  

Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119  

Zhao, N., Xu, J., Zhou, Q., Hu, J., Luo, W., Li, X., Ye, Y., Han, H., Dai, W., & Chen, Q. (2023). Screening behaviors for diabetic foot risk and their influencing factors among general practitioners: A cross-sectional study in Changsha, China. BMC Primary Care, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02027-3