Georgia health care center (GHC) is a renowned institution that provides quality Medicare to patients who suffer from cancer and coronary-related complications in the US. The institution operates under best health practices that ensure timely and quality service delivery to patients. Since its inception, the hospital has been able to achieve its objective through the execution of effective quality assessment and improvement programs. This paper gives comprehension information about Georgia hospital that provides cancer and coronary health care to patients.
Mission and key services that the institution offers
Georgia health care center was initiated with a core mission to be leading cancer, coronary, and counseling service provider globally. It was also initiated to provide quality, affordable, timely, and health-oriented nursing care services to patients. Its mission was strategically set to help in eradication and cushioning individuals from the adverse effects of cancer which is a leading killer disease and coronary complications that are also on the increase.
The difference between performance measurement and quality improvement processes
As defined, performance measurement is a quality improvement tool that entails a detailed assessment of activities that an organization is executing. The process is essential in establishing whether the activities conform to quality standards especially in the health sector and whether the clinical services are satisfactory (Wachter, 2007). Consequently, quality improvement is a systematic process that entails the adoption of innovative health practices. It is based on performance evaluation results that enable the identification of key areas that require improvement. Therefore, performance measurement and quality improvement are dependent elements that provide basic incentives for institutional advancement. They have enabled Georgia health care institutions to continuously provide quality services that satisfy patients’ needs promptly.
Quality improvement goals
Georgia health institution has set strategic quality improvement approaches that are economically viable. The approaches focus on the transformation of direct health care delivery policies and systems (Lighter, 2013). Key quality improvement aspects that the institution is keen on include hiring of qualified staff, expansion of operating centers, adoption of lean administration technique, adherence to ethical standards, and purchasing modern health care infrastructure. The integration of these aspects will enable the company to meet its quality improvement goals that include achieving effectiveness, equitability in service delivery, and a high level of safety. Timely response to patient needs and optimal utilization of resources also form key goals that the health center seeks to achieve.
Role of consumers
Every stakeholder in the Georgia health care center has a responsibility to play role in ensuring that quality is enhanced at all levels of operations. For instance, patients, their family members, and friends have a responsibility to give timely and credible feedback on the institution’s performance about the quality of its services (Lighter, 2013). The stakeholders can also participate in policy formulation to help the management of the institution adopt operating guidelines that are quality-oriented. Consequently, they have a responsibility to assist in ensuring patient safety by ensuring effective cooperation with the medical officials.
External quality indicators and how consumers use them
Key indicators that are relevant to assess the performance level of Georgia health center include effectiveness, equity, and the institution’s goodwill in terms of quality care that it provides. In particular, equity is an external factor that gives a clear indication of an institution’s operating ideals. This information is provided by key stakeholders who have experienced the service capacity that an institution can offer (Waring, 2007).
The information they give influences the decision-making of other potential clients of the institution. This may lead to the attraction of more customers, especially if it is established that the institution is not discriminatory at any rate. Effectiveness is another key factor that indicates the performance level or quality aspects of an institution. It is essential since it determines the quality and timely delivery of services to patients. This helps patients in making decisions on whether to seek the services or not. Consequently, the perception that individuals have about the institution, in
particular, the quality of its services has a credible influence on its performance. That is when a health institution is negatively perceived, no patient would want to seek medical services in the company.
How to feed back information can be used
Georgia health care institution has been using stakeholder feedback information to streamline its operations. For instance, feedback information from stakeholders has enabled the company to formulate health-oriented policies. The policies have facilitated the hiring of qualified health professionals and purchasing effective medical equipment. Feedback information from employees has also enabled the institution to identify key areas of operation that require structural improvement (Waring, 2007).
This is evident since employees are the people who engage in providing various services to patients in the institution daily, hence they know key aspects that limit their operations. Feedback information from customers and other stakeholders has also enabled the institution to focus on key areas of concern that include quality Medicare and timely delivery of services. Indeed, health care institutions that aspire to record high performance and maintain a high level of quality standards must take into consideration the issues that are raised by their stakeholders.
Lighter, D. (2013). Basics of Health Care Performance Improvement: A Lean Six Sigma Approach. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wachter, R. (2007). Understanding patient safety. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Waring, J. (2007). Adaptive regulation or governability: Patient safety and the changing regulation of medicine. Social Health Illness, 29 (2), 163-179.