Outcome Measure for Care Coordination Project NURS FPX 6618 Assessment 1 Planning and Presenting a Care Coordination Project

NURS FPX 6618 Assessment 1 Planning and Presenting a Care Coordination Project

Next, the collaborative design of the program will be executed, and a program for providing coordinated care will be established within six months. Next, one-month training of health professionals will result in well-trained experts in care coordination. This training will help the team members effectively collaborate strategically. Once the training is conducted, healthcare professionals will develop and implement care coordination plans by delivering the best quality coordinated and consolidated care. This phase is slated to last three months and will be followed by ongoing monitoring and evaluation (Miller et al., 2019).

 

The outcome measures identified for this project include

clinical health outcomes, which can be measured by finding disease-specific clinical indicators such as HbA1c levels for diabetes and blood pressure and cholesterol levels for cardiovascular diseases. Additionally, patient medication adherence can be measured by measuring the percentages of patients consistently taking their medication as directed. Furthermore, assessing changes in symptom severity and frequency of chronic care conditions such as pain levels, shortness of breath, and fatigue will gauge the quality of care provided and the achievement of project goals.

Another outcome measure is healthcare utilization, where hospital readmission rates for chronic disease patients can be measured for thirty days to assess the quality of care. Moreover, patient satisfaction surveys can be conducted to assess patient perceptions and their overall experience of this project. This will assist healthcare professionals in estimating the quality of care delivered to patients and driving improvements to match results with desired goals (Conway et al., 2019).

Presentation of Project Plan to Administrative Decision-Makers

For the successful implementation of care coordination for chronic care patients, it is imperative to integrate a patient-centered care approach with multidisciplinary collaboration. This requires equitable resource allocation and engagement with relevant stakeholders. The milestones will be achieved within the allocated timelines with coherent collaboration. Multiple organizations will participate in this project for financial aid and coordinated care delivery. The project outcome measures will be evaluated from time to time to ensure desired goals are achieved.

Conclusion

A care coordination project for chronic care patients is essential as fragmented care results in poor health outcomes, including reduced quality of life, comorbidities, and increased death rates. Moreover, lack of care coordination can lead to higher medication and treatment errors in chronic disease patients, further aggravating poor quality of health. Therefore, this care coordination plan project is developed for chronic care patients. The vision of interagency coordinated care is to provide a patient-centered approach and collaborative care. “Virginia’s Department of Health,” “Virginia’s Association of Area Agencies on Aging,” and national healthcare organizations such as the “American Heart Association (AHA),” “American Diabetes Association (ADA),” and “American Nursing Association (ANA)” must participate in care for the affected population.

The resource needs vary based on fluctuating factors but require a $1,615,000 annual cost for general supplies, staffing, and capital purchases. Several project milestones are identified, from stakeholder engagement to establishing coordinating plans and implementing care coordination. The outcome measures include hospital readmission rates, patient satisfaction, and clinical health outcomes.

References

Conway, A., O’Donnell, C., & Yates, P. (2019). The effectiveness of the nurse care coordinator role on patient-reported and health service outcomes: A systematic review. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 42(3), 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278717734610