nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1 Proposing Evidence-Based Change

Assessment 1: Proposing Evidence-Based Change

Learner’s Full Name
Capella University of health and sciences
FPX6218: Leading the Future of Health Care
Professor’s Name
Month,Year

Introduction

This change aims to fix current inefficiencies. The current system uses scattered scheduling tools. This causes long wait times, missed appointments, and unhappy patients. The hospital plans to use an advanced scheduling system. This will help streamline operations, improve patient access to care, and boost clinician efficiency. In the end, it aims for better health outcomes. This proposal is part of the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1. It aims to improve healthcare management in a way that enhances efficiency.

Executive Summary

Proposed Change

Johns Hopkins Hospital will use a better system to schedule and manage patient appointments. This system will cut long waiting lists and no-show rates. It will also give patients more chances to be seen, boosting their satisfaction. The project is aligned with the goals outlined in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1 to improve healthcare delivery systems.

Current Process

Right now, Johns Hopkins Hospital uses different systems for scheduling and managing appointments. This causes issues with patient flow (Ala & Chen, 2022). Many people face delays when trying to get an appointment with a healthcare provider. The waits to see a specialist can be even longer. This can slow down getting an accurate diagnosis or starting the right treatment. Punctuality issues affect both doctors and patients. This problem often comes from poor communication and limited chances to reschedule. Patrons have shared similar worries about scheduling. They often mention problems with getting appointments at their preferred times. They also face issues with changes or cancellations of scheduled visits. These challenges form the core analysis of the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

Evidence of Need

Improving the scheduling and appointment management system is crucial. Data shows that current processes harm treatment outcomes and hurt efficiency. For example, a study by Niño de Guzmán Quispe et al. In 2021, research showed that delays in getting appointments can seriously harm health. This is especially true for people with chronic conditions. Missed appointments lead to unused time slots. This lowers efficiency and uses up resources that could improve patient care. This critical analysis is part of the ongoing NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1. It focuses on systemic inefficiencies.

Current Services Offered

Johns Hopkins Hospital uses Electronic Health Records (EHRs) with basic appointment tools. But these systems don’t have features to engage patients (Tsai et al., 2020) actively. Current reminder methods are just phone calls or text messages. There’s no self-service online portal for booking or rescheduling appointments in real time. Patients often feel frustrated due to poor communication with hospital schedulers. This is especially true when call volumes are high. These challenges are key to the recommendations in the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1. They aim to improve patient-provider interaction.

Expectations for Improvements

Johns Hopkins Hospital’s new scheduling and appointment management system should bring major benefits. Key improvements feature new scheduling algorithms. These are made to cut delays and fill scheduling gaps. This helps to optimise patient care timing (Ala et al., 2021). Cognitive prompts and flexible rescheduling options can lower no-show rates. They also boost operational efficiency and make the most of clinic resources. Also, a custom online platform will let patients schedule appointments easily. This will cut down on frustration and boost their overall experience. Better coordination of patient care and treatment schedules can boost clinical productivity and enhance patient outcomes. These enhancements are a core focus of the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1 initiative.

Desirable Outcomes

An effective scheduling system is expected to make healthcare services easier to access. It should also cut down patient waiting times and boost satisfaction by streamlining the patient journey (Zhang et al., 2023). Some missed appointments may still happen, but they won’t affect provider efficiency much. Patient health outcomes should improve because the new system enhances communication and engagement. Clinicians will gain from better scheduling predictability. This change lets them spend more time on direct patient care. These goals align with the objectives set forth in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

Rationale

These outcomes come from noticing problems in current scheduling methods. These issues make it hard to deliver care efficiently and keep patients satisfied. A good system can boost transparency in patient flow. It can also help hospitals meet patient needs more effectively. Research shows that automated reminders and real-time booking options lower no-show rates. They also boost clinician productivity by automating routine tasks (Toker et al., 2024). This approach aligns with today’s healthcare goals. It boosts efficiency, cuts down on red tape, and encourages patient-focused care. These are key elements of the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1.

Who Will Pay for Care

The cost to implement the new scheduling system will mainly come from the Johns Hopkins Hospital operating budget. It will also be supported by other funding sources. Some expenses may be offset by grants aimed at healthcare innovation, such as those offered by the CMS. Better cooperation and fewer missed appointments should save money in the long run. This will help recover the initial costs. Patients won’t face extra charges. The hospital or other funding sources will cover the implementation costs. This financial plan is detailed in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1 to ensure transparency and feasibility.

Limiting Factors

Several challenges could impede successful implementation. The initial large financial outlay and the need for extensive staff training may strain both financial and human resources. Resistance to change from staff and patients could also delay adoption. Also, technical problems when integrating with current EHR systems may cause delays (Aguirre et al., 2020). To reduce these risks, Johns Hopkins Hospital should focus on staff training. They also need to use change management strategies to handle resistance. Lastly, securing sufficient funding for technical support during the transition is important. A key recommendation in the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1 is to address these concerns. This will help achieve the system’s intended benefits.

Explanation of Changes and Expected Improved Outcomes

Key initiatives include using a better scheduling and appointment management system. This system aims to fix current problems. Automated booking, real-time alerts, and simple rescheduling will reduce wait times for patients. This will help them access care better (Woodcock, 2021). Clearer provider schedules will further enhance appointment availability. Automated reminders should greatly lower no-show rates. This will help improve patient flow and make better use of provider time. This change helps clinicians spend more time on patient care instead of admin work. As a result, both provider satisfaction and patient outcomes improve. These expected outcomes align with the goals outlined in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

Health Care System Comparative Analysis

Looking at healthcare systems in other countries can help Johns Hopkins Hospital improve scheduling and care coordination. Two great models to consider are the Ontario Health System in Canada and the UK General Practice (GP) System. Both show new ways to handle appointment scheduling, patient access, and care coordination. They tackle issues like those now faced by Johns Hopkins.

Current Services at Johns Hopkins Hospital

Right now, Johns Hopkins Hospital schedules appointments using several different systems. This leads to inefficiencies, delays in diagnoses, and longer wait times for patients, particularly with specialists. Poor reminders and few rescheduling options lead to missed or delayed appointments. This hurts patient satisfaction and service delivery (Teo et al., 2020). These issues are central to the analysis in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

Ontario Health System (Canada)

The Ontario Health System provides a similar environment and presents helpful models for improved appointment scheduling. The Ontario Telemedicine Network lets specialists consult from a distance. This cuts down on wait times for non-emergency cases (Hall et al., 2022). Ontario’s eHealth platform connects electronic records from different providers. This makes it easier to coordinate appointments. It also helps patients move between healthcare organisations. This reduces redundant testing and improves information flow, optimizing patient care.

UK General Practice (GP) System

The UK GP System exemplifies centralized triage and patient administration at multiple levels. Patients can book and cancel appointments online. This service works well with EHRs, making it easier for primary care and specialists to coordinate care (NHS, 2020). The system’s ongoing digital innovation has boosted patient satisfaction and cut wait times. It does this by making administrative processes more efficient.

Gaps and Lessons Learned

Comparing these systems shows gaps at Johns Hopkins Hospital. There is a lack of centralized, integrated scheduling and patient engagement tools. Johns Hopkins doesn’t have good digital platforms like those in Ontario and the UK. This means patients can’t easily manage their appointments. As a result, no-show rates are higher, and it adds more work for staff. Using these engagement tools would boost satisfaction and efficiency. This is backed by the findings in the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1.

Recommendations for Improvement

Johns Hopkins Hospital should adopt a central online scheduling system. This system should be similar to the one used by the Ontario Health System. It will help improve appointment scheduling and make care delivery more efficient. Integration with patient health records will support clinicians in making informed care decisions. Using patient engagement tools in the UK GP System can help. Patients can book, change, and receive reminders online. This will reduce no-shows and improve patient flow (Brands et al., 2022). These strategies are core recommendations in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

Specific Changes Leading to Improved Outcomes

Technology improvements in patient record systems at Johns Hopkins will reduce patient wait times, enhance care coordination, and boost satisfaction. Automated reminders and easy rescheduling options will cut no-show rates, increasing clinic productivity. Flexible scheduling will promote clinician organization and ultimately better patient outcomes. Implementing systems inspired by the Ontario Health System and UK GP System will elevate care delivery and patient experience, fulfilling the objectives set forth in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

Financial and Health Implications

Implications of Making the Changes

Johns Hopkins Hospital’s new scheduling and appointment system comes with high upfront costs. This includes expenses for software, hardware, and staff training. While these upfront investments are considerable, ongoing expenses are expected to be minimal compared to the substantial benefits gained. Key financial advantages are lower administrative costs. This comes from better scheduling, timely appointment reminders, and using resources well (Niu et al., 2024). At the hospital level, better resource use and lowered operating costs are anticipated due to fewer redundant appointments and enhanced workflow. From a health perspective, faster patient access is expected to improve satisfaction and outcomes. Patients will face fewer delays. Also, providers can spend more time on care instead of administrative tasks. These changes should reduce patient complaints and improve hospital performance (Åhlin et al., 2023). These projections match the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1 findings. They highlight the need to upgrade scheduling systems to enhance healthcare delivery.

Implications of Not Making the Changes

If Johns Hopkins Hospital does not make these changes, it will likely keep facing scheduling problems that annoy patients. Nonattendance will waste resources, raise costs, and reduce the use of available capacity. These inefficiencies hurt patient well-being. They delay needed care and can make medical conditions worse. Clinicians may also face more burnout from poor scheduling systems. These systems can cut down their time with patients. The hospital will have high costs due to admin inefficiencies. This may cause it to fall behind other institutions that use integrated Electronic Patient Scheduling (EPS) systems. Failing to modernize can lower the quality of patient care. It may also delay access to specialists and make follow-up care harder. These risks are detailed in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1 to emphasize the urgency of system improvements.

Short and Long-Term Effects

In the short term, the new scheduling system might disrupt workflows. Staff will need time to train and adjust to the new processes. Resistance to change from clinicians and administrative staff is expected (Rehman et al., 2021). However, these initial challenges are outweighed by long-term benefits. Over time, the system will reduce appointment no-shows, optimize patient flow, and enhance operational performance and outcomes. Better self-organization will help clinicians manage their schedules and offer better care. Long-term effects include reduced administrative costs, minimized revenue loss due to no-shows, and more efficient use of hospital facilities. Together, these gains will boost hospital profits and improve patient care. This is backed by the findings from the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1.

Evidence Supporting Conclusions

Research by Abdalkareem et al. (2021) shows that better scheduling and appointment systems improve management and boost population health. Innovations in scheduling boost clinical staff productivity. They cut down on administrative tasks, so clinicians can focus more on patient care (Javaid et al., 2024). Also, efficient scheduling leads to quicker diagnosis and treatment. It improves health outcomes, especially for patients with chronic or complex conditions (Alowais et al., 2023). These insights corroborate the conclusions drawn in the nurs fpx 6218 assessment 1.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis

The initial cost of implementing the advanced scheduling system is projected between $500,000 and $800,000, covering software, hardware, and training expenses. Ongoing costs include system maintenance estimated at $2,500 per month, plus periodic staff training. However, the system is expected to deliver significant cost savings by reducing no-show rates, improving resource utilization, and increasing patient throughput. Based on these factors, the hospital anticipates a return on investment (ROI) within 18 to 24 months. Additionally, enhanced operational efficiency could increase patient volume and revenue, further justifying the initial outlay. Long-term benefits, like higher patient satisfaction and better health outcomes, will make Johns Hopkins Hospital a leader in healthcare service delivery. This is noted in the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1.

Conclusion

The system will cut down on inefficiencies and save time and effort. This will improve patient care and boost access to appointments. The upfront costs may be high, but the long-term benefits will make up for it. Better resource use and lower admin costs will lead to savings over time. This change fits the hospital’s goals. It aims to deliver quality care, boost patient engagement, and adapt to the changing healthcare landscape. The insights and recommendations from the NURS FPX 6218 Assessment 1 show how crucial these innovations are for healthcare management.

Appendix

Table 1: Health Care System Comparative Analysis

Outcomes

UK Healthcare System

• Patient Access to Care: Nationalised system offers universal access. Patients get a GP who coordinates care, leading to quicker access to primary care (Bi & Liu, 2023).

• Care Coordination: GPs are gatekeepers for specialist services. They help manage patients efficiently (Sripa et al., 2019).

• Missed Appointments and No-Shows: Low rates of missed appointments happen because of reminders from integrated scheduling (Parsons et al., 2021).

• Resource Utilization and Efficiency: Focus on primary care improves system efficiency, easing pressure on emergency services (Mbau et al., 2022).

• Patient Satisfaction: Patients are generally satisfied with GP relationships and care, despite longer waits for specialists (Schäfer et al., 2020).

Ontario Health System (Canada)

• Patient Access to Care: Universal access is available, but long waits for specialists can occur (Liddy et al., 2020).

• Care Coordination: Good coordination through primary care physicians, although specialist waits can affect overall care (Emily Gard Marshall et al., 2023).

• Missed Appointments and No-Shows: Missed appointments can happen due to long waits, though reminder systems help reduce no-shows.

• Resource Utilization and Efficiency: The system aims for equitable care, but waits for non-emergency services can lead to inefficiencies.

• Patient Satisfaction: High satisfaction with primary care exists, but waiting for non-urgent procedures can affect overall experience.

US Healthcare System

• Patient Access to Care: Access depends mainly on insurance coverage and scheduling, causing delays, especially for specialists (Galvani et al., 2020).

• Care Coordination: Coordination is complicated, involving various departments and specialists, with electronic health records aiding information flow.

• Missed Appointments and No-Shows: High no-show rates occur, partly due to poor reminder systems and rescheduling issues.

• Resource Utilization and Efficiency: Operational inefficiencies in scheduling lead to underused resources, particularly specialist time (Marbouh et al., 2020).

• Patient Satisfaction: Long wait times for appointments and complicated scheduling hurt patient satisfaction.

References

Abdalkareem, Z. A., Amir, A., Al-Betar, M. A., Ekhan, P., & Hammouri, A. I. (2021). Healthcare scheduling in optimization context: A review. Health and technology, 11(3). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12553-021-00547-5

Aguirre, R. R., Suarez, O., Fuentes, M., & Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. A. (2020). Electronic health record implementation: A review of resources and tools. Cureus, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5649

Åhlin, P., Almström, P., & Wänström, C. (2023). Solutions for improved hospital-wide patient flows – A qualitative interview study of leading healthcare providers. BMC health services research, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-09015-w

Ala, A., Alsaadi, F. E., Ahmadi, M., & Mirjalili, S. (2021). Optimization of an appointment scheduling problem for healthcare systems based on the quality of fairness service using whale optimization algorithm and NSGA-II. Scientific reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98851-7

Ala, A., & Chen, F. (2022). Appointment scheduling problem in complexity systems of the healthcare services: A comprehensive review. Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022, e5819813. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5819813

Alowais, S. A., Alghamdi, S. S., Alsuhebany, N., Alqahtani, T., Alshaya, A., Almohareb, S. N., Aldairem, A., Alrashed, M., Saleh, K. B., Badreldin, H. A., Yami, A., Harbi, S. A., & Albekairy, A. M. (2023). Revolutionizing healthcare: The role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC medical education, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z

Bi, Y.-N., & Liu, Y.-A. (2023). GPs in UK: From health gatekeepers in primary care to health agents in primary health care. Risk management and healthcare policy, 16, 1929–1939. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S416934

Brands, M. R., Gouw, S. C., Beestrum, M., Cronin, R. M., Fijnvandraat, K., & Badawy, S. M. (2022). Patient-centered digital health records and their effects on health outcomes: Systematic review. Journal of medical internet research, 24(12). https://doi.org/10.2196/43086

Emily Gard Marshall, Miller, L., & Moritz, L. (2023). Challenges and impacts from wait times for specialist care identified by primary care providers: Results from the MAAP study cross-sectional survey. Challenges and impacts from wait times for specialist care identified by primary care providers: Results from the MAAP study cross-sectional survey, 36(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704231182671

Galvani, A. P., Parpia, A. S., Foster, E. M., Singer, B. H., & Fitzpatrick, M. C. (2020). Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA. The lancet, 395(10223), 524–533. National library of medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)33019-3

Hall, J. N., Alun Ackery, Dainty, K. N., Gill, P., Lim, R., Masood, S., McLeod, S., Mehta, S., Nijmeh, L., Rosenfield, D., Rutledge, G., Verma, A., & Mondoux, S. (2022). Designs, facilitators, barriers, and lessons learned during the implementation of emergency department led virtual urgent care programs in Ontario, Canada. Frontiers in digital health, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.946734

Javaid, M., Haleem, A., & Singh, R. P. (2024). Health informatics to enhance the healthcare industry’s culture: An extensive analysis of its features, contributions, applications and limitations. Informatics and health, 1(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoh.2024.05.001

Liddy, C., Moroz, I., Affleck, E., Boulay, E., Cook, S., Crowe, L., Drimer, N., Ireland, L., Jarrett, P., MacDonald, S., McLellan, D., Mihan, A., Nico Miraftab, Véronique Nabelsi, Russell, C., Singer, A., & Keely, E. (2020). How long are Canadians waiting to access specialty care? Retrospective study from a primary care perspective. Canadian family physician, 66(6), 434. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7292524/

Marbouh, D., Khaleel, I., Al Shanqiti, K., Al Tamimi, M., Simsekler, M. C. E., Ellahham, S., Alibazoglu, D., & Alibazoglu, H. (2020). Evaluating the impact of patient no-shows on service quality. Risk management and healthcare policy, 13(13), 509–517. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S232114

Mbau, R., Musiega, A., Nyawira, L., Tsofa, B., Mulwa, A., Molyneux, S., Maina, I., Jemutai, J., Normand, C., Hanson, K., & Barasa, E. (2022). Analyzing the efficiency of health systems: A systematic review of the literature. Applied health economics and health policy, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00785-2

NHS. (2020, November 9). GP appointments and bookings. Nhs.uk. https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/gps/gp-appointments-and-bookings/

Niño de Guzmán Quispe, E., Martínez García, L., Orrego Villagrán, C., Heijmans, M., Sunol, R., Fraile-Navarro, D., Pérez-Bracchiglione, J., Ninov, L., Salas-Gama, K., Viteri García, A., & Alonso-Coello, P. (2021). The perspectives of patients with chronic diseases and their caregivers on self-management interventions: A scoping review of reviews. The patient, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00514-2

Niu, T., Lei, B., Guo, L., Fang, S., Li, Q., Gao, B., Yang, L., & Gao, K. (2024). A review of optimization studies for system appointment scheduling. Axioms, 13(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms13010016

Parsons, J., Bryce, C., & Atherton, H. (2021). Which patients miss appointments with general practice and why? A systematic review. British journal of general practice, 71(707), BJGP.2020.1017. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2020.1017

Rehman, N., Mahmood, A., Ibtasam, M., Murtaza, S. A., Iqbal, N., & Molnár, E. (2021). The psychology of resistance to change: The antidotal effect of organizational justice, support and leader-member exchange. Frontiers in psychology, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678952

Schäfer, W. L. A., van den Berg, M. J., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2020). The association between the workload of general practitioners and patient experiences with care: results of a cross-sectional study in 33 countries. Human resources for health, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-00520-9

Sripa, P., Hayhoe, B., Garg, P., Majeed, A., & Greenfield, G. (2019). Impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, and health outcomes, use, and expenditure: A systematic review. British journal of general practice, 69(682), e294–e303. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19x702209

Teo, A. R., Metcalf, E. E., Strange, W., Call, A. A., Tuepker, A., Dobscha, S. K., & Kaboli, P. J. (2020). Enhancing usability of appointment reminders: Qualitative interviews of patients receiving care in the veterans’ health administration. Journal of general internal medicine, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06183-5

Toker, K., Kadir Ataş, Alpaslan Mayadağlı, Zeynep Görmezoğlu, Ibrahim Tuncay, & Rümeyza Kazancıoğlu. (2024). A solution to reduce the impact of patients’ no-show behavior on hospital operating costs: Artificial intelligence-based appointment system. Healthcare, 12(21), 2161–2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12212161

Tsai, C. H., Eghdam, A., Davoody, N., Wright, G., Flowerday, S., & Koch, S. (2020). Effects of electronic health record implementation and barriers to adoption and use: A scoping review and qualitative analysis of the content. Life, 10(12), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10120327

Woodcock, E. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to automated patient self-scheduling for health care organizations: Scoping review. Journal of medical internet research, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/28323

Zhang, H., Ma, W., Zhou, S., Zhu, J., Wang, L., & Gong, K. (2023). Effect of waiting time on patient satisfaction in outpatient: An empirical investigation. Medicine, 102(40), e35184. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000035184