Quality Assurance And Quality Management Methods (Research Paper Sample)

Introduction to Quality Assurance and Quality Management Methods
Name:
Institution:
Introduction to Quality Assurance and Quality Management Methods
Today, there are various problems associated with the healthcare system; however, it is not in good practice for a health professional to use an organizational problem as an excuse for poor service. For instance, the issue of being understaffed only brings clients into a collaborative state; as a result, they would tend to cut on some of their demand to allow doctors to attend to other patients (Stephenson, 2011). That is very detrimental to their health. Being understaffed might only affect the number of patients that the medics attend to, but it cannot in any way compromise on the qualitative aspect of their services. Nurses should only strive to manage their time well, focus on the scripting and their quality check-list to deliver better results (Stephenson, 2011). In one of the interviews conducted in the nursing times, the then secretary of health in Britain, Andrew Lansley argued that it is rare to point out a never event that occurred due to understaffing. In his view, most of these situations arise due to incorrect administration of medical services that have no properly examined processes (Stephenson, 2011). I am of the same opinion as Andrew’s; the management should come up with quality control checks and also focus on the individual members responsible for the damage and disregard the understaffing claims.
In retrospect, the term never event, in relation to healthcare, was introduced by the former boss of the National Quality Forum (NQF), Ken Kizer (Wilcox et al, 2015). He meant to describe the wrong-site surgeries as events that should never take place (Wilcox et al, 2015). Traditionally, there were clear procedures that, if effectively complied with, would accurately determine the right operative sight, therefore, avoiding such flimsy mistakes. The term was again adopted in a discussion concerning the rising numbers of preventable clinical errors that were being made on a recurrent basis. Following these two instances, it has been the norm in the healthcare industry to refer to such errors as never events-clinical errors that are preventable and should not be allowed to occur (Wilcox et al, 2015). In 2002, the NQF defined 27 events that satisfy the threshold of a never event. With time, the list grew to 29 elaborate events that are categorized into seven distinct groups. They include surgical, environmental, devices, criminal, patient protection, care management and radiologic events (Wilcox et al, 2015).
In this case, a patient who had a surgical cut at the entrance of her vagina during childbirth needed suturing to hold the cut vaginal tissues together. To facilitate the suturing process, the medics placed three swabs in the vagina. They were all supposed to be removed at the end of the suturing procedure. When everything was done, the medics only removed one swab instead of three. That was later realized some days after the patient, and the baby had already left the hospital premises (NHS England Patient Safety Domain, 2015). The two swabs fell off. When confronted on the matter, the nurses and the doctors used understaffing as an explanation to justify such a grave mistake. It met the description of a never event since the removal of every swab was to be ensured at the end of the process, and they were also retained unintentionally.
To assess the validity of the nurses and doctors claims, first and foremost one would first consult with the management to ascertain if the number of staff meets the number set by the statutory laws. According to Youles (2016), there is no single factor that affects the quality of healthcare than staffing. That is regardless of whether the quality results are examined by time or conditions. If indeed, his claims are anything to go by, then one would argue that maybe the doctors and nurses had several other patients to attend to, and as a result of the rush, the two swabs were left in the vagina. However, if the hospital human resource meets the required number by the law, then one would determine that those claims are mere hearsay. Alternatively, one would also use a checklist to authenticate such claims. As part of their quality assurance programs, many hospitals have adopted the use of procedural check-list to ensure that their professionals do the right thing when handling patients (Youles, 2016). Therefore, in this case, one would quickly use the checklist to ascertain whether the medics complied with every step of that process. If the last process, which involves the removal of swabs is not marked, then it only means that suturing wasn’t done procedurally, thus amounting the error to a never event. Lastly, one can also decide to cross-check the incident with the never events that are stipulated by the NQF. While using this technique, the above case would still qualify the definition of a never event because foreign things have been retained in a patient after a surgical process. The NQF define such objects as “items that should be subject to a formal counting/checking process at the commencement of the procedure and a counting/ checking process before the procedure is completed (such as swabs, needles, instruments and guide wires)” (NHS England Patient Safety Domain, 2015, p.4).
With reference to the general human philosophy that no human being is perfect, never events are bound to continue happening. It is therefore incumbent upon the healthcare practitioners to know how such mistakes can be avoided to offer better services. In this case, the management can opt to adopt the use of modern medical technology and also practice in tandem with the general guidelines that have been put in place to ensure efficiency in the facilities (Wilcox et al, 2015). Also, one can recommend that all the medics be grouped according to their areas of specialization to ensure that ...