When preparing for the improvement of quality practices within a healthcare institution, it is necessary that one be fully aware of all the issues that may arise in the process of preparation. Some of the major issues that I would like addressed on the onset of the committee are first; what we aim to achieve by the end of the committee.
If we discuss this as the first agenda in the first meeting with the committee members, we will be able to remain focused and therefore achieve our main objectives. We would look at the possible issue that may arise within us as a committee and how we should act on them. We should not wait until they affect us so that we can deal with them. Among the major issues that may arise within the committee is time management.
The committee is comprised of people from diverse profession and therefore there are chances that they have different views and therefore a lot of time will be needed to address these issues. It would therefore be necessary to address the issue of time as it may have a serious implication to the committee and its ability to meet its objective. (McDermott, R. et al, 1996)
Another issue that I would like to look into with the committee members is the performance of the healthcare industry in general. We would also look at some of the common problems that are experienced by healthcare industry in general.
We would then factor them down or rather try to check whether they affect the institution in focus. We would try to find out whether the problems that healthcare institutions face concern the management of the organization or the workers at their respective places of work.
I would also like the committee to analyze the healthcare institutions and rate them on whether on their capable of providing standard services to the patients. The committee would also look at the number of hospital that offer substandard services to the patients and try to dig dipper into them and see the reason behind this failure.
The committee is formed to provide recommendations which are necessary for quality-practice improvement in hospitals. It can therefore be argued that it presents the interests of the patients or the citizens as they are the ones who benefits with the improved quality practices. This is also the reason why there is a layman in the committee as he represents the citizens or the patients. (McDermott, R. et al, 1996)
Due to the diverse nature of the persons that are in the committee, there is a chance that there will be some challenges facing the committee in execution of its duties. The committee members have different levels of professionalism and therefore they will have different levels of reasoning and understanding of facts.
This means that the process of decision making may be very difficult as there may be a lot of argument. To deal with this, I would require that every person raise his or her point and then it would be discussed by all the committee members to see the viability of the idea. This way, we would be able to avoid wastage of time through unnecessary argument and misunderstanding. (ISO 15189:2003)
I would suggest that in the committee, there should be a legal advisor. This is a person who would advise the committee on some of the recommendations that it will be making. He would make sure that the decisions that the committee makes are under the legal framework of the government.
I would also recommend or rather suggest that a quality surveyor be included in the committee. This is a person who would give some technical advice to the committee on the state of the current healthcare system and whether it meets the minimum required standards.
He would also offer suggestions on what the requirements should be and therefore help the committee to come up with recommendations. (Robitaille, 2003)
Some of the quality indicators that the committee might come with are care for some of the chronic conditions such as COPD avoidable admissions, diabetes amputation, asthma avoidable admissions, mental disorder admissions such as schizophrenia, care for emergencies such as Ischemic and Hemorrhagic stroke, cancer care such as 5 year relative survival rate for cervical, colorectal and breast cancer.
(Anderson, B. & Fagerhaug T. , 2000)
In conclusion, it is necessary to understand that such a committee will be faced by a lot of challenges. This is due to the diverse nature of the members of the committee. However, if the members are focused, they will be able to meet the objectives of the committee and see to it that it comes up with the helpful recommendation.
Anderson, B. & Fagerhaug T. . (2000). Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and Techniques. Milwaukee: ASQ Press.
McDermott, R. et al. (1996). The Basics of FMEA. New York: Productivity Press.
Robitaille, D. (2003). The Preventative Action Handbook. Chico, CA : Paton Press.
ISO 15189:2003. Medical Laboratories – Particular Requirements for Quality and Competence