Improving UK Health Care Quality

Introduction

Present day health and social care practices in the United Kingdom have prompted a comprehensive review of the entire department by the government. The focus of these initiatives has been placed on service providers, with the intention of improving the quality of care services that will be offered to their patients (Tanajewski et al. 2015). This explains the increased focus on the need to ensure these facilities are compliant to the national standards for care provision. On many occasions, the quality of services provided is determined by the perception of the patients and their relatives. This opinion is often informed by the level of satisfaction they will attain as determined by the extent to which their desires were met during their hospital experience. It also explains why quality is defined as the extent to which service providers are adjudged to be in conformity with the required levels of responsiveness to customer needs (Hales et al. 2016). This definition means that providers of health care services should be sensitive to the needs of their clients at all times and provide them with services that are relevant to their specific needs at specific times. Additionally, when students seek healthcare dissertation help, they often explore how these quality measures affect patient satisfaction and overall health outcomes.

Quality of Care

According to the World Health Organization, quality in healthcare services is defined to include the magnitude of improvement that can be recorded by a patient after they have been subjected to preventive or curative healthcare procedures (Horne et al. 2018). It is important for the intervening agencies to consider efficiency, safety, timeliness and effectiveness of the intervention when administering these healthcare services.

Quality Assurance and Control

Quality assurance refers to all systems that are initiated with a view of enhancing the quality of healthcare services offered to patients (Hales et al. 2016). This definition points to the existence of structures and frameworks that can be used to guide operations and prevent the possible occurrence of errors due to negligence and other human factors. Similarly, quality control defines various protocols and procedures that are applied to ensure that providers of healthcare services satisfy customer needs (Tanajewski et al. 2015).

This report seeks to evaluate the quality of social and healthcare services provided to mental health patients by Priory Hospital North London in the United Kingdom. The paper will also appraise the Donabedian theory and the principle of total quality management and their application to the concept of quality evaluation and management of healthcare services.

A Pen Portrait of Priory Hospital North London

Priory Hospital North London is located in Southgate area of London that has been in operation since 1986. This facility provides medical care to patients with mental health challenges. Some of these ailments include anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and depression, among many more. The facility maintains a reputation of excellent service delivery to youthful persons aged between twelve and eighteen years.

How Priory Hospital Is regulated

The Care Quality Commission regulates this facility. They conduct periodic inspection trips to ensure the facility remains compliant with established safety and quality standards. Information is drawn from various sources, including hospital records and patient interviews. Performance ratings are published after these reviews to provide a representation of the existing state of affairs and highlight potential areas of improvement (Macpherson et al. 2017).

Theoretical Perspective

The Donabedian theory outlines guidelines that can be used to appraise the quality of healthcare services offered within designated facilities. This framework is crucial in helping the healthcare service providers to improve the quality of services they offer by adhering to a clearly defined framework that will guarantee accuracy and efficiency in the quest to realize ideal outcomes. The theory provides for a multi-pronged approach in evaluating the quality of healthcare services by considering the following factors:

Structure

Evaluating structure includes all processes applied when interrogating the physical infrastructure available at the hospital. This infrastructure may consist of offices for the doctors and other medical practitioners resident in the facility. The structure may also extend to the available members of staff and the extent of their abilities when faced with patients of different (Tanajewski et al. 2015). Most notably, the fabric will also evaluate the policy framework that guides service delivery initiatives in the medical facility and the framework for resource allocation to the facilities. Evaluating structures is vital for mental healthcare facilities because industry regulators and providers of insurance services will use this information to establish whether a healthcare provider has the requisite capacity to deliver quality services (Narayanan et al. 2016). Evaluating structure is essential for because it provides metrics on the specific impact that existing infrastructure will have on the medical facility and the inherent ability to provide the requisite medical attention to patients (Vivekanantham et al. 2017). Medical facilities need to satisfy particular standards of care provided before they are considered as high-quality providers of medical attention.

Processes

Processes are also measured during the evaluation of healthcare processes in medical institutions to cover for the deficiencies of structure (Horne et al. 2018). This measure evaluates the lengths service providers extend to when attending to patients. The data gathered from this evaluation is compared against prescribed standard operating procedures to determine the level of suitability. Comparisons are also drawn with the interventions that are known to improve patient outcomes during the provision of care for these patients, with a view of reducing the possibility to future occurrences of these ailments or related medical complications (Tanajewski et al. 2015). On many occasions, evaluators will interrogate the appropriateness of the processes undertaken during patient intervention based on the predefined operating procedures. Evaluating this dynamic will determine whether patients received recommended therapeutic responses. This evaluation is also essential because it provides feedback that can be synthesized to generate specific action points, making it a direct source of information about potential areas for improvement (Horne et al. 2018). It is worth mentioning that evaluating processes may not provide information regarding the appropriateness of the medical intervention provided or whether the treatment interventions offered for these patients were coordinated.

Outcomes

Outcomes of the pathological process can also be assessed as part of quality evaluation initiatives (Alshehri, Keers & Ashcroft 2017). Results evaluate the health status of the patient based on the quality of healthcare they had received. The need to achieve this result means the focus is placed on the assessment of effects that specific medical care initiatives had on patients, whether it was intended or not. On many occasions, this evaluation will extend to the overall status of the patients and the extent to which they will function normally after the administration of the medical intervention (Hales et al. 2016). Evaluating outcomes is also crucial in determining the suitability to mental healthcare facilities because it will give information on whether treatment outcomes have been realized or the patients have received a raw deal. It is clear that patients approach healthcare providers intending to improve their fortunes and medical condition. In this regard, persons measuring outcome will not rely on the clinical processes that are applied during patient care. Emphasis will be placed on the statistical information provided by the facility and the resultant inferences that can be drawn from these records (Osborn et al. 2016). For example, an agent evaluating outcomes will focus on the number of people who have been cured of their conditions, the success rate of complicated ailments that need intensive management, and the number of new occurrences of mental illnesses, among many more. These measures will include information collected directly from the patients through the issuance of reports. In spite of this process being a feedback-led initiative, the evaluation of outcomes may not incorporate information about the full extent of patient experiences during the treatment and recovery process. Focus is placed on the skills that patients had during their time at the hospital and the impact these procedures on their recovery (Hales et al. 2016). This requirement makes the evaluation of outcomes a complementary process that should be undertaken together with the review of other consequences.

Patient Experience

The fourth element that should be considered during the evaluation of quality in healthcare services is patient experiences (Narayanan et al. 2016). This data can be gathered directly from the patients by asking about their experiences in the medical facility. The scope of this review is unlimited, allowing patients to field question regarding the different experiences they undergo, including their interpersonal relationships with caregivers. The successful provision of mental healthcare interventions requires dedication and the utmost care from the service providers (Keers et al. 2015). On many occasions, these patients are either unaware of their predicament or the severity of their ailment. The fact that they lack total control over their cognitive faculties means that they rarely have a recollection of their previous actions and experiences at the medical facility. The fragile nature of their condition calls for the utmost care from the healthcare service providers (Osborn et al. 2016). Many healthcare practitioners have overlooked their commitment to patients by exposing them to harsh and unforgiving conditions whenever they are confined in medical wards. In this regard, the evaluation of outcomes will determine the suitability of the general practices implemented during the provision of care services for these patients (Alshehri, Keers & Ashcroft 2017). This evaluation may include accessibility of the care providers or information within the facility, whether patients are informed of their prognosis after testing, and the ease of securing appointments or doctor visits. Studies have shown that facilities, which return positive feedback concerning the relationship between patients and their caregivers, offer higher quality medical services (Keers et al. 2015). This statistic means that periodic testing to evaluate the quality of the services provided in healthcare facilities will improve the overall outcomes of caregiving facilities for patients with mental health challenges. It also means that patients who experience better quality services from medical institutions will develop a positive outlook towards the treatment process, making them increasingly receptive whenever advice is offered. It is worth mentioning that healthcare services are continually evolving (Vivekanantham et al. 2017). This dynamic means that quality assurance initiatives will play an essential role in determining the suitability of new interventions and the areas of improvement for existing practices.

Total Quality Management (TQM) Theory

The TQM theory proposes the use of systems based approach to guarantee that healthcare providers offer quality services to their patients and ensure long-term satisfaction is realized. This process advocates for the use of principles designed to ensure all members of the organization maintain high standards and an acceptable work ethic (Horne et al. 2018). The widely varying nature of these standards means they govern internal staff in the facilities, service providers and members of the public, including the patients and their caregivers. Various areas of consideration apply in the application of TQM principles in the oversight of healthcare roles. Areas of interest where this can be applied include the engagement of employees through mechanisms that will define ways of involvement in the daily operations and the extent to which their skills are utilized to achieve the desired health outcomes. TQM can also be used to preside over the implementation of measures designed to reduce the number of errors and accidents that arise in the course of administering healthcare services. This occurrence means that applying TQM principles is a crucial step in ensuring proper communication prevails at all times, a fact that guarantees good workflow is maintained and data is disbursed to the requisite actors at all times.

TQM has also been defined as a philosophy of management that desires to incorporate all organizational functions. Some of these arms include customer services, finance and marketing, among many more. This provision means that TQM desires an environment where organizational objectives are tailored to meet customer needs (Narayanan et al. 2016). Since customer satisfaction is a long-term objective, TQM proposes the division of these tasks into small responsibilities that are manageable and can be implemented periodically. In this regard, quality will only be attained after all customer needs have been satisfied by the healthcare facilities. It is important to note that TQM is an expensive undertaking. Most of these exorbitant costs arise from the length required to implement these initiatives and the costs associated with training employees and other stakeholders to ensure conformity through proper utilization of resources. In spite of these challenges, many organizations that have implemented TQM successfully have experienced growth and an improvement in their fortunes.

Outcome of evaluating

Evaluation remains an important component of the quest to guarantee an improvement in the quality of services that are offered by healthcare providers. This improvement can be instrumental in distributing knowledge to all employees, hence; informing decision-making and enhancing the problem solving abilities of practitioners within their organizations (Keers et al. 2015). Evaluation is also instrumental to ensuring organizations will formulate new policies at all times with a view of improving the quality of services offered to patients. Communication forms a key component for the successful implementation of this strategy within the organizations. The findings that arise from these evaluation initiatives can also be disbursed to different departments within the organizations involved in the provision of care services to patients (Ellis et al. 2017). This outcome means that the review will show how members of staff and the management team at Priory Hospital provide improved quality of healthcare to patients of mental health. These changes will include deliberate efforts designed to instigate a change in some of the practices undertaken within these facilities.

Evaluation Benefits of Administration of Medication to the Service Users

Numerous benefits can be drawn from conducting periodic evaluation for quality of the services provided by medical facilities. One of these benefits includes the incorporation of new services to complement previous offerings to incorporate the participation of all members from the beginning of the service delivery process (Osborn et al. 2016). Conducting this evaluation will improve the quality of services at Priory Hospital by empowering consumers of these services and inducing a change in the overall direction adopted by the facility, which is informed by existing data. Safety will also be enhanced by the implementation of measures that will reduce errors in administration of medication or patient care procedures. Most importantly, users will be empowered on the best methods of risk identification in the course of receiving their (Alshehri, Keers & Ashcroft, 2017). Members of staff will also be empowered to identify and acknowledge their mistakes, a move that will enhance transparency and increase confidence levels.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is essential to note that human factors form a crucial component of the evaluation cycle during the determination of the quality of healthcare services. This situation makes it crucial to healthcare practitioners to assume ownership of all change related processes they may seek to implement in the course of their daily undertakings. It is vital for these practitioners to assume ownership of the process because they are the face of these medical facilities and take up the frontline position whenever interventions are implemented. This occurrence also means they are empowered to either promote or curtail the implementation of change within the organization. This state means that nurses and doctors are an essential avenue for data collection and other evaluation initiatives that can be implemented to determine the quality of services that are offered in the medical institutions and the resultant impact on patient outcomes. In this regard, it is vital for medical practitioners to undertake to the benchmark of the quality of the services they offer against the standards provided by better performing medical institutions as a method of establishing the existing gaps and areas of weakness, which will be used as a springboard to improve performance of the facility.

References

Alshehri, G.H., Keers, R.N. and Ashcroft, D.M., 2017. Frequency and nature of medication errors and adverse drug events in mental health hospitals: a systematic review. Drug safety, 40(10), pp.871-886.

Ellis, G., Gardner, M., Tsiachristas, A., Langhorne, P., Burke, O., Harwood, R.H., Conroy, S.P., Kircher, T., Somme, D., Saltvedt, I. and Wald, H., 2017. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (9).

Hales, H., Somers, N., Reeves, C. and Bartlett, A., 2016. Characteristics of women in a prison mental health assessment unit in England and Wales (2008–2010). Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26(2), pp.136-152.

Horne, S., Hay, K., Watson, S. and Anderson, K.N., 2018. An evaluation of sleep disturbance on in-patient psychiatric units in the UK. BJPsych bulletin, 42(5), pp.193-197.

Keers, R.N., Williams, S.D., Vattakatuchery, J.J., Brown, P., Miller, J., Prescott, L. and Ashcroft, D.M., 2015. Medication safety at the interface: evaluating risks associated with discharge prescriptions from mental health hospitals. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 40(6), pp.645-654.

Macpherson, R., Calciu, C., Foy, C., Humby, K., Lozynskyj, D., Garton, C., Steer, H. and Elliott, H., 2017. A service evaluation of outcomes in two in-patient recovery units. BJPsych bulletin, 41(6), pp.330-336.

Narayanan, V., Dickinson, A., Victor, C., Griffiths, C. and Humphrey, D., 2016. Falls screening and assessment tools used in acute mental health settings: a review of policies in England and Wales. Physiotherapy, 102(2), pp.178-183.

Osborn, D., Burton, A., Walters, K., Nazareth, I., Heinkel, S., Atkins, L., Blackburn, R., Holt, R., Hunter, R., King, M. and Marston, L., 2016. Evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention for lowering cardiovascular disease risk for people with severe mental illnesses in primary care (PRIMROSE study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17(1), p.80.

Tanajewski, L., Franklin, M., Gkountouras, G., Berdunov, V., Harwood, R.H., Goldberg, S.E., Bradshaw, L.E., Gladman, J.R. and Elliott, R.A., 2015. Economic evaluation of a general hospital unit for older people with delirium and dementia (TEAM randomised controlled trial). PloS one, 10(12), p.e0140662.

Vivekanantham, A., Sheikh, A.R., Omer, H. and Bescoby-Chambers, N., 2017. Physical health assessment and medicines reconciliation on admission to an acute mental health unit: a quality improvement project. Psychiatria Danubina, 29(Suppl 3), pp.660-663.