NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 2: Policy Proposal

by Posted on

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 2: Policy Proposal Conclusion

In conclusion, addressing the benchmark underperformance in diabetes care at Mercy Medical Center necessitates a multifaceted approach rooted in ethical principles, evidence-based practices, and collaborative stakeholder engagement. The proposed Policy and Practice Guidelines, focusing on standardized foot examinations and comprehensive training programs, serve as a strategic framework to rectify identified deficiencies and elevate the quality of patient care. The active involvement of healthcare professionals and patients is integral to the success of the initiative, ensuring that the guidelines align with practical realities, reflect patient needs, and foster a culture of continuous improvement. Transparent communication, regular dialogue forums, and proactive consideration of stakeholder perspectives contribute to the implementation’s success by addressing objections and cultivating a shared commitment to enhancing diabetes care outcomes. This comprehensive strategy positions Mercy Medical Center to not only meet benchmark standards but also to establish a patient-centric, ethical, and sustainable model of healthcare delivery that aligns with the diverse needs of its stakeholder community.

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 4 gives an open door to understudies to feature their insight into administration and coordinated effort in medical services. By understanding administration hypotheses, encouraging interprofessional cooperation, tending to moral difficulties, and zeroing in on quiet results, understudies can succeed in this appraisal and add to significant enhancements in medical care.

 References

Bégin, P., Chan, S., Kim, H., Wagner, M., Cellier, S., Favron, C., Abrams, M., Ben, M., Cameron, B., Carr, S., Fischer, D., Haynes, A., Kapur, S., Primeau, N., Upton, J., Vander, K., & Goetghebeur, M. (2020).Guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-020-0413-7

Carter, M., Rogers, W., Win, T., Frazer, H., Richards, B., & Houssami, N. (2020). The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care. The Breast, 49, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.10.001

Flaherty, J., Delaney, H., Matvienko, K., & Smith, V. (2022). Maternity care during COVID-19: A qualitative evidence synthesis of women’s and maternity care providers’ views and experiences. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04724-w

Hansen, J., Ahern, S., & Earnest, A. (2023). Evaluations of statistical methods for outlier detection when benchmarking in clinical registries: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 13(7), e069130. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069130

J Olumade, T., Adesanya, O., Fred, I., Babalola, D., Oguzie, J., Ogunsanya, O., George, U., Ajani, O., & Osasona, D. (2020). Infectious disease outbreak preparedness and response in Nigeria: History, limitations and recommendations for global health policy and practice. AIMS Public Health, 7(4), 736–757. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2020057

Published by Ivy