NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

The evaluation of dashboard metrics provides an opportunity to assess the performance of an organization through the analysis of its key performance indicators (KPIs). It involves setting the specific objectives of the dashboard, selecting the most relevant KPIs (NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation) to keep track of the progress, analyzing the data entered in the dashboard, and then taking decisions to improve the organization’s performance.

This evaluation aims to improve care standards, optimize resource utilization, monitor the organization’s financial performance, keep track of clinical outcomes, and ultimately improve patient safety (Alvarado et al., 2021). The quality assurance leader of the Mercy Medical Center has provided dashboard information on the diabetes metrics. This assessment will monitor the KPIs of the diabetes dashboard and will indicate the improvement areas. 

Also Check:
NURS FPX 4060 Assessment 3 Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

Evaluation of Dashboard Metrics

Mercy Medical Center is considered among the top healthcare organizations in Shakopee due to its high level of care and safe clinical operations conducted to improve outcomes. The evaluation metric involves the number of tests conducted for measuring Hgb1Ac levels, eye, and foot examination tests. The number of eye exams in 2019 was calculated as 200. In 2020 it was 232. Compared to the total population, the ratio of these tests is low, as Shakopee’s total population is 36,192. The number of diabetic patients reported in the dashboard is 563, and the percentage of eye tests concerning patient numbers was 35% in 2019 and 41% in 2020.

The number of tests for the measurement of Hgb1Ac level drastically fell in the last quarter of 2019 and was found to be 210 with a percentage of 37%. In 2020, the number of tests was 272, and the number of tests decreased in the second and last quarters. The percentage of this test was 48% in 2020. In the case of foot examination, the total number was 230, with a percentage of 40% in 2019. While in 2020, the number of foot tests was 235, with a percentage of 41%. The percentage of white people undergoing examination was 63%, 13% America-based Indians, 6% Asians, and 3% African Americans, and 13% of patients declined the response. 

Diabetes is one of the main health concerns in the US that has affected millions of people resulting in a large percentage of mortality and various morbidities. According to the state-level benchmark, the percentage of Hgb1Ac tests should be 78% and 84% foot examination (Diabetes in Minnesota | 2019 Annual Report, 2019). Similarly, the national-level benchmarks introduced by National Diabetes Care and Prevention Program should be at least 79% Hgb1Ac tests, 84% foot examination, and 75% eye checkups (CDC, 2020). The dashboard information of Mercy Medical Center indicates that it is not meeting the required benchmarks, as Hgb1Ac and foot examination are the main tests for screening diabetes patients; therefore, adequate measures are needed to improve these metrics. 

Gaps in Information 

Different gaps have been identified that have affected evaluation metrics in the dashboard. For example, the number of healthcare staff and their backgrounds are missing to meet the needs of culturally diverse patients. The information on the number of patients belonging to different ethnicities concerning the type of test is also missing. There is a gap in patients’ information, such as their economic status and education. The ratio of these tests in other organizations is not mentioned because the organization’s performance with other competitors cannot be compared. All these gaps should be addressed, and all the relevant information should be provided in the dashboard to help make suitable changes in organization structure and operations. 

Consequences of not Meeting the Prescribed Benchmarks

The failure to meet the set benchmarks leads to a myriad of negative impacts on patients and healthcare organizations. Inadequate testing will lead to uncontrolled complications of diabetes involving cardiac issues, eye problems, foot infections, and kidney diseases. This will increase the risk of mortality in patients and affect their quality of life.

The rate of readmissions in hospitals will be increased due to increased complications. Ultimately, healthcare costs will be increased due to these chronic conditions, which will burden patients and organizations (Goehler et al., 2019). Patient satisfaction will also be reduced, affecting the organization’s reputation and financial stability. To sum up, organizations need to meet the prescribed benchmarks to retain the integrity of their vision and healthcare goals. 

Challenges and Implications

There are different challenges and assumptions associated with the process of data collection and evaluation of benchmarks. These challenges include communication gaps and barriers that can arise due to the presence of an insufficient number of staff from different ethnicity. A culturally diverse workforce must be hired as patients undergoing tests belong to multiple ethnicities. The level of education and awareness in patients is another challenge associated with improving benchmark progress. Patients with low education levels lack the necessary guidance to be involved in regular diagnosis to prevent diabetes onset (Khunti et al., 2023). As a result, sufficient tests cannot be conducted, and organizations cannot meet the required benchmarks. 

All these challenges and assumptions can be minimized by introducing cultural diversity in staff, which will help communicate effectively with patients. Providing education and conducting meetings with patients will help organizations promote regular testing (Li & Whyte, 2021). These strategies can help overcome the challenges and meet the required benchmarks set by authorities. 

Evaluation of Benchmark Underperformance 

The evaluation reports indicate the underperformance metrics in the diabetes dashboard. The significant underperformance area is inadequate Hgb1Ac tests. The dashboard of the Mercy Medical Center provides information on the number of feet, Hgb1Ac, and eye tests for diabetes diagnosis. The Hgb1Ac test is the most important parameter for the prediction of diabetes. This test monitors the average blood glucose levels for three months. Regular testing will help organizations prevent diabetes by taking adequate measures to stabilize blood glucose levels (Davidson et al., 2021).

The dashboard statistics indicate 37% and 48% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. This ratio shows that the Mercy Medical Center is underperforming in Hgb1Ac tests. Similarly, the second underperformance benchmark is foot examination which is necessary for diabetes diagnosis. The foot examination is equally important to Hgb1Ac tests because diabetes leads to severe infection in lower limb areas. Sometimes, amputation is performed to prevent infection from spreading to other vital organs (Pourkazemi et al., 2020). The ratio of this test was 40% and 41% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. 

Diabetes has become the eighth cause of mortality in the US, affecting people from different ethnicities. It not only dysregulates glycemic levels but also increases the prevalence of secondary infection in people with diabetes (CDC, 2019). So it is very important to do regular Hgb1Ac and foot examination tests. It will assist the organization in reducing the ratio of diabetes and achieving the goals for Healthy People 2030. 

Potential Impact of Chosen Benchmark 

These particular benchmarks have the potential to determine the quality of services and care provided to patients. If sufficient tests are performed, the diagnosis and treatment process will be improved. The organization will take necessary measures to control the rising cases of diabetes and extend diabetes prevention campaigns and programs (Wong et al., 2020). The patient satisfaction level will be enhanced, and the KPIs of organizations will also be improved. 

Ethical Actions to Address Benchmark Underperformance 

 An ethical framework is necessary to address the underperformance areas and change the organization’s policies and procedures. These ethical actions involve increasing the clinically competent staff number to conduct an accurate diagnosis of diabetes and introducing the concept of culturally diverse healthcare staff that can address the patient’s needs and preferences without any communication gaps, conducting regular training sessions for the staff to communicate with patients effectively and guide patients on adopting healthy habits to prevent diabetes. Furthermore, they will be guided in treating patients equally and without disparity (Ndjaboue et al., 2020).

Each patient should be treated equally, and maximum benefits should be conferred to patients. The interdisciplinary collaboration approach to provide optimum patient care should be implemented. This approach will involve the role of diabetes specialist, general practitioner, lab technician, ophthalmologist, nurse, and podiatrist. This team will create awareness of diabetes care, tests, and treatment (Kung et al., 2020). HIPAA regulations should be implemented to ensure patient privacy and prevent security breaches. All these actions should be taken to promote ethical and sustainable healthcare activities that will help achieve the required benchmarks and improve patient safety and outcomes. 

Conclusion – NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation

The dashboard of Mercy Medical Center shows the clear need to improve the level of Hgb1Ac tests and foot examinations. These tests will help in the effective diagnosis of diabetes and analyze the ratio of people affected by diabetes. The underperformance areas must be addressed, otherwise, they will result in severe consequences. Promoting different cultural identities, enhancing communication, educating patients, and complying with regulations will help in improving performance, and severe complications will be avoided. 

References 

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Alvarado, N., McVey, L., Elshehaly, M., Greenhalgh, J., Dowding, D., Ruddle, R., Gale, C., Mamas, M., Doherty, P., West, R., Feltbower, R., & Randell, R. (2021). How, why and in what contexts do web-based dashboards support the use of national audit data in quality improvement? Findings from a realist evaluation of a novel, quality dashboard in England (Preprint). Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/28854

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: CDC. (2019). Division of Diabetes Translation. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/index.html

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). CDC – about the program – national diabetes prevention program – diabetes DDT. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/about.htm

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Davidson, K. W., Barry, M. J., Mangione, C. M., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Krist, A. H., Kubik, M., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Owens, D. K., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Stevermer, J., Tseng, C.-W., & Wong, J. B. (2021). Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. JAMA, 326(8), 736. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.12531

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Disparities in Diabetes Care. (2021, November 9). European Medical Journal. https://www.emjreviews.com/diabetes/article/disparities-in-diabetes-care-j040121/

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Diabetes in Minnesota | 2019 Annual Report. (2019). America’s Health Rankings. https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Diabetes/state/MN

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Khunti, K., Mathieu, C., Torbeyns, B., Prato, S. D., Heine, R., Colhoun, H., Danne, T., Due-Christensen, M., Eeg-Olofsson, K., Fagherazzi, G., Haustein, R., Klok, R., Levrat-Guillen, F., Benedetti, M. M., Mata, M., Pall, J., Soderberg, J., Vedin, O., & Wilson, P. (2023). Diabetes registries and high-quality diabetes care. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 11(2), 70–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00386-2

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Kung, F.-P., Tsai, C.-F., Lu, C.-L., Huang, L.-C., & Lu, C.-H. (2020). Diabetes pay-for-performance program can reduce all-cause mortality in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. Medicine, 99(7), e19139. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019139

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Manne-Goehler, J., Geldsetzer, P., Agoudavi, K., Andall-Brereton, G., Aryal, K. K., Bicaba, B. W., Bovet, P., Brian, G., Dorobantu, M., Gathecha, G., Singh Gurung, M., Guwatudde, D., Msaidie, M., Houehanou, C., Houinato, D., Jorgensen, J. M. A., Kagaruki, G. B., Karki, K. B., Labadarios, D., & Martins, J. S. (2019). Health system performance for people with diabetes in 28 low- and middle-income countries: A cross-sectional study of nationally representative surveys. PLOS Medicine, 16(3), e1002751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002751

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Ndjaboue, R., Chipenda Dansokho, S., Boudreault, B., Tremblay, M.-C., Dogba, M. J., Price, R., Delgado, P., McComber, A. M., Drescher, O., McGavock, J., & Witteman, H. (2020). Patients’ perspectives on how to improve diabetes care and self-management: Qualitative study. BMJ Open, 10(4), e032762. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032762

NURS 6004 Assessment 1 Dashboard Metrics Evaluation: Pourkazemi, A., Ghanbari, A., Khojamli, M., Balo, H., Hemmati, H., Jafaryparvar, Z., & Motamed, B. (2020). Diabetic foot care: Knowledge and practice. BMC Endocrine Disorders, 20(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-020-0512-yWong, T., Brovman, E. Y., Rao, N., Tsai, M. H., & Urman, R. D. (2020). A dashboard prototype for tracking the impact of diabetes on hospital readmissions using a national administrative database. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 12(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4029

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Fill The Following to Resume Reading

    Please Enter Active Contact Information For OTP

    Verification is necessary to avoid bots.
    Please Fill The Following to Resume Reading

      Please Enter Active Contact Information For OTP

      Verification is necessary to avoid bots.
      Scroll to Top
      × How can I help you?