Introduction
Mannion (2012) defines a quality system as a kite mark instigated within a service entity to benchmark the service values, ideals, and principles. The CQC published a report on the RUH Bath Trust, registering that the infirmary had annulled several surgical treatments and stalled patients scheduled for therapies. The CQC identified incident reporting, staffing levels and GP surgeries as the pivotal areas for improvement (Care Quality Commission 2014). This paper seeks to determine if indeed the CQC findings are valid and outlines three approaches to executing efficient quality systems.
Body
Care Quality Commission Reports: To What Extent are Statements within an Investigation True?
CQC divulged that RUH’s GP surgeries and clinical audits were below average. Griffiths (2011, p. 10) endorses CQC’s reports remarking that the agency’s statements record substantial information on commendable care amenities for public benefit. Unit 23(1) of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 grants the Commission the jurisdiction to effect hospital inspections, assign warning notices, and fines (Greenfield & Braithwaite 2008). CQC’s reports strive to uphold patients’ rights and ensure they receive optimum medical care and welfare (Mannion 2012). All the same, critics disapprove of CQC’s statements, claiming that the data publication on medics is “crude and misleading” (Furness 2009). Opponents assert that very few surgical errors induce patient deaths, instead attributing institutional failings to the high mortality rates. With reference to Griffiths (2011, p. 12), I regard that the board’s assessments are eligible as the council’s culture is susceptible, considerate, and easily reachable.
Identify Quality Systems for Measuring Quality: The Best Approach for the Royal United Hospital (RUH)
Enumerated below are performance systems instrumental in estimating the quality of RUH’s services (Greenfield & Braithwaite 2008, p. 177).
- Consumer Surveys. CQC uses surveys, questionnaires, and interviews to evaluate patients’ experience, feedback, and public contentment.
- Third-Party Assessments. Examples include peer review, accreditation, and ISO Standards that evaluate conformity to the international yardstick for quality marks.
- Statistical Indicators. The impact data involved features league tables that function to foster hospital progress, public interest, transparency, and patient empowerment.
Analyze Three Approaches Used to Implement these Quality Systems
- Patient Charters. The UK government publishes patient-themed concessions that execute health education, complaint mechanisms, and care persistence to acquaint patients of their medical rights (Greenfield & Braithwaite 2008, p. 180).
- Audit Monitoring. Certified Public Accountants should implement accreditation programs in hospitals to grade their adherence to the promulgated standard processes. Griffiths (2011) affirms that the balancing of ISO Standards, certification, and peer review revamp hospital performance, institutional development, and professional self-assessment.
- Stakeholder Engagement. The participant stakeholders should contribute to the publication of the trust’s activities as grounds for calculated statistical indicators, to incorporate quality improvement and performance management (Care Quality Commission 2014).
Identify the Benefits and Consequences of Implementing these Approaches
The following points illuminate the benefits and consequences of implementing the systems above (Mannion 2012).
Benefits
- Improved Services. Quality systems secure a continuum of recommendatory services and map priority areas for performance improvement.
- Budget Ratification. Performance structures ratify the value for money and investments to commissioners.
- Credibility. Quality frameworks elevate stakeholder credibility by way of demonstrating positive outcomes.
Dysfunctional Consequences
- Tunnel Vision. The desire to implement quality may deflect attention from other unmeasured, yet essential areas including prenatal mortalities.
- Public Trust Disintegration. Exposing poor NHS performance corrodes people’s confidence in zero-star hospitals and clinics.
- Staff Intimidation. The management may turn to hassle and threaten the employees to meet performance foci.
Conclusion
National Health Service trust corporations require quality assurance and control to deliver premium health and social treatment services. As for RUH Bath trust, the Care Quality Commission’s report on the poor performance encountered is befitting, seeing that the board exercised fair regulations in the study (Griffiths 2011). The best approach for RUH is to enforce audit monitoring and stakeholder engagement to suffice patients’ requirements.
References
Care Quality Commission 2014, Royal United Hospital NHS Trust, media release, Web.
Furness, S 2009, ‘A hindrance or a help? The contribution of inspection to the quality of care in homes for older people’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 488-505.
Greenfield, D & Braithwaite, J 2008, ‘Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review’, International Journal Quality Health Care, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 172-183.
Griffiths, A 2011, ‘The quality and risk profiles of the Care Quality Commission’, Risk & Regulation, vol. 22, pp. 10-14.
Mannion, R 2012, ‘Measuring hospital quality and performance’, The Quarterly, Web.