Posted: September 30th, 2023

NUR 4827 Discussion Group Communication

NUR 4827 Discussion Group Communication
Module 5 – Discussion
Group Communication

Scenario – Your hospital has recently revised its CQI vision and aims based on the work done on the Quality Chasm series. As nurse manager in an ED (Emergency department) you need to take this information and make it “real” for staff in the ED. You and the medical director will present this information to the staff, but you need to figure out how it applies to daily work and how to engage staff. You both agree that the staff will not appreciate the “words” on the paper unless you can attach their meaning to their daily work.
Instructions:
1. Read the scenario above and answer the following questions: a. What information would you use as your base to discuss the vision and the aims? b. How would you then apply this information to the ED and daily work done by staff? c. Would benchmarked data be of any use in this scenario to the committee? 2. Your post should: o Answer the questions as thoroughly and concisely as possible. o Be sure to reference any works that you utilize in answering the questions ■ Be sure that references are in APA format. 3. Please respond to at least one (1) of your classmate’s posting. 4. To see the grading rubric, click on the 3-dot menu on the top-right
side of screen.

###
Revising a Hospital’s CQI Vision and Aims: A Nurse Manager’s Perspective
Introduction
Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become a cornerstone of modern healthcare. Hospitals implement CQI programs to systematically monitor performance, identify areas for enhancement, and implement changes to better achieve their missions of high-quality, patient-centered care. My hospital network recently revised our CQI vision and aims based on insights from The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Quality Chasm series, which highlighted gaps between ideal and actual care delivery in the U.S. healthcare system. As the nurse manager of our hospital’s emergency department (ED), it is now my responsibility to help frontline staff understand and embrace these revised CQI goals.
Applying the Framework to Daily Work
To begin this process, I will use our new CQI documentation as the foundation. This outlines our network’s renewed commitment to patient-centeredness, effective communication, safety, timeliness, efficiency, and equity (Hospital Network, 2022). However, presenting clinical terminology and objectives may not resonate with busy ED staff. Therefore, I plan to apply this framework concretely to our daily work. For example, one aim focuses on ensuring patients are informed partners in their care. To operationalize this, I will emphasize explaining tests and next steps to patients at their comprehension level (Institute of Medicine, 2001). Benchmarking current patient experience survey data against targets can quantify room for growth (Press Ganey Associates, 2020).
Another aim involves effective communication. I will use shift-change huddles as an example, stressing the importance of all staff knowing patient conditions, pending tests or consults to facilitate safe handoffs. Comparing our current practices to Joint Commission (2016) handoff guidelines can identify areas for standardization. Presenting real examples like these helps translate abstract goals into achievable actions staff can own. It also allows input on barriers and solutions, fostering engagement from the outset. Benchmarking performance against standards or peer data demonstrates CQI is about continual learning, not blame.
Staff Engagement is Key
Gaining staff buy-in will be critical to success. Frontline clinicians are most familiar with daily operations and challenges. Involving them from the start acknowledges their expertise and increases accountability (Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2022). I plan to solicit frontline perspectives on barriers to achieving each aim based on their experiences. Staff will also help identify metrics to objectively measure progress over time. Incorporating multiple viewpoints leads to more comprehensive solutions tailored to our unique ED context.
Regular communication and feedback loops will also sustain staff engagement. I propose hosting brief monthly meetings to update metrics, recognize areas of excellence, and jointly problem-solve ongoing issues. Surveys before and after process changes can evaluate effectiveness from the participant perspective. Addressing concerns transparently builds trust that CQI is a cooperative effort, not a punitive exercise. Over time, involving frontline staff from the outset to the evaluation of changes fosters a just culture where all feel responsible for continuous advancement (Reason, 2000).
Conclusion
In conclusion, simply communicating revised CQI aims may not inspire action. As the nurse manager introducing this framework, I aim to make goals relevant to daily work by applying them concretely and involving multidisciplinary frontline perspectives from the start. Benchmarking current performance against standards and regularly surveying staff experiences helps quantify needs for improvement in a non-threatening manner. Sustained communication and feedback loops then maintain engagement and accountability as we work cooperatively towards our shared vision of safe, high-quality, patient-centered care. Overall, grounding lofty objectives in reality and incorporating diverse viewpoints will maximize staff understanding and buy-in to advance our hospital’s CQI journey.
References
Hospital Network. (2022). Continuous quality improvement strategic plan: 2022-2025. Internal Document.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2022). How to improve. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/default.aspx
Joint Commission. (2016). Improving patient and worker safety: Opportunities for synergy, collaboration and innovation. Oak Brook, IL.
Press Ganey Associates. (2020). 2020 Emergency department patient experience. Internal Report.
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768

Order | Check Discount