Article Analysis Essay on "Quality Improvement in Public Health: Lesson From the Multi-state Learning Collaborative"

Introduction

This article of Academy Health by title "Quality Improvement in Public Health: Lesson from the Multi-State Learning Collaborative" (Academy Health, 2009), I conceptualize QI program and the implementation which has entirely improve the sector. This article deals with some universal quality improvement in U.S, which are the Public Health Quality Forum (PHQF) services, Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB), and Multi-State Learning Collaborative (MLC). These are the main ideas of this article that provide excellent results in case studies and procedural method to redress health crisis in the United States.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

PHQF was founded in 2008, by the Health and Human Services department to address community demands by transforming, directing, quality and the significant improvement on the healthcare organization. The main focus of this concept associated by defining "a set of goals of improving quality in health departments. Design work to help in upgrading QI efforts focus on QI in the health system, and common set indicators in each s targeted areas" (PHQF, 2009).

The Public Health Accreditation (PHAB), created in 2007, and its role was to assist national voluntary establishment, accreditation arrangement for local tribal public department, territorial and state. Accreditation objective is to provide protection and improve community status by upgrading the services of health, and program of attaining national accreditation standards, departments of health providing tools and identify plans required to make their health and locals out of danger.

The Multi-state Learning Collaborative (MLC), has the primary role of facilitating the QI at state and local government. This initiative started in the year 2006, later completed in the year 2011, MLC updates the national accreditation, collaborate better improvement program into public health systems, enhance systematic learning across partners and state, and increase the knowledge concerning public health. However, MCL in three phase develops incubators for quality improvement to serve as a laboratory and make use of accreditation as a quality process.

Also, Multi-state Learning Collaborative in the second phase incorporates incubators for quality, a group of ten states unites together in evaluating better teaching practice and by establishing QI local and states levels. Its measures involve QI consultation, training, utilizing state collaborative, and expanding the reach to local departments. Thirdly, MCL enlarged the project to sixteen states and implementing QI function to attain measurable and specific goals.

Lastly, MCL contributed to a national voluntary accreditation program through the efforts of states participating. By considering efforts of MCL in organizing locals and practitioners to attain its goals has yielded a lot best practice and lessons health facility especially local and state health care departments seeking to boost quality and maintain accreditation.

Furthermore, the exploration on how the process executed accordingly includes; some strategies of QI to be taken into account, as an essential role-play in the support mechanism and improving outcomes of services.

For instance, any successful implementation of QI in any sector needs a process for providing ongoing training and education on relevant skill. For examples, all staff of the public health system staff should go in- service training in principles, techniques, and tools for improvement. Furthermore, it is essential for all the team within public health to understand clearly the vision and mission of the organization and show commitment to quality improvement as one of their routine activities.

Also, the major hindrance of effective implementation of QI in public health, leaders have inadequate finances, to support the project. Quality improvement implementation needs enough resources. The reality is that funds and fiscal resources are vital in implementing the QI in modern approach for the health care utilization and cost to be attained. Hence, the values on a return of investment in quality healthcare become achievable.

Moreover, the correct definition of the problem and goals leads to realistic assessment and the proper solution thus help in solving this problem which is identified through different sources, e.g., providers, quality indicator, clinical safety and complaints from the public members for example, a little modification of already established of QI models and make the models acceptable by the citizen. However, to evaluate QI outcomes and improvements, the set framework reviewed on a regular basis for every essential process. Objective feedback efforts may involve the display of improvement data, e.g., how many complaints indicated, and this will enable the health sector to count on the action on performance rather than satisfactory.

Most importantly, for smooth management in an organization is through assigning the responsibilities to staff and in this way it will assist in proper management of the public health sector, the employee will divide the role according to specialization, create adequate assessment and evaluation to the areas given and hand over the feedback that will go in hand in improving QI in the long run. Also, still on staff, the public health incorporation with senior leaders should offer an incentive to the workers. Though, it may be small appreciation the sector will gain more as the result because motivated staff tends to be productive.

Leadership role and commitment to quality improvement is essential to the actual realization of a QI project. Leaders and managers provide and support health sector culture, such a culture that promotes in OI. By making it culture the program will run smooth and spread throughout the health sector and become institutionalized. The leader can elevate the QI and performance in putting place critical mechanisms support while give the staff authority to make changes. On the other hand, an integral part is done by the leadership of the public sector is the process of developing and implementing the QI and its system. In fact, in most of the states, an individual in leadership is the pilot and catalyst of the QI program. For instance, they ensure policymakers are involved, as far as the QI and performance management come to together so that they can relate QI efforts to outcomes in the agency. Therefore, commitment and concern for quality improvement associated with the leadership impact directly on quality improvement.

As I examine the consideration, despite, the demonstration by various initiatives on systematic and process of quality improvement and outcomes of the public health sector, I notice that most efforts focus so much on accreditation and collaboration e.tc. However, they have less information about QI capacity, competencies and sector culture. Apart from the demonstration of substantial progress in implementing QI in preparation of departments' accreditation and improve performance. They should also focus on QI research for particularly health departments as it needs change and more study for the sake of future dynamics and sustainability of the project.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it clear that for the outcomes and performance to be attained in the public sector through the QI program, the practice should consider three proponents; which is the structure, process, and outcomes. These components play a crucial role in accomplishing the application of quality improvement in the public sector and health care entities.

References

Bialek, R., Carden, J., & Duffy, G. L. (2010). Supporting Public Health Departments' Quality Improvement Initiatives. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 16(1), 14-18. doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e3181ce96df

Brewer, R. A., Joly, B., Mason, M., Tews, D., & Thielen, L. (2007). Lessons Learned From the Multistate Learning Collaborative. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 13(4), 388-394. doi:10.1097/01.phh.0000278033.64443.2a

Guishard, M. (2009). Lessons Learned From Collaborative Health Research and Indigenous Scholars. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e626652009-001