NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal NHS-FPX 6004 Health Care Law and Policy ​​​​​​​Policy Proposal

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal

NHS-FPX 6004 Health Care Law and Policy

Policy Proposal

We evaluated Mercy Medical Center’s (MMC) dashboard metrics against national and state benchmarks by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The results showed that MMC is shortfalling in all three diabetes screening tests – eye tests, foot examination, and HBA1c levels. However, the feet examination had a significant variance from the established benchmarks. In this paper, we develop policy and practice guidelines to address underperformance, improve the quality of care, and minimize patient safety risks. 

Need for Policy and Practice Guidelines to Address Underperformance 

The established benchmark for foot examination in diabetic patients is 84% nationally and 8.7.7% at the state level. Contrastingly, the MMC numeric data shows only 40-42% of foot examinations were conducted in 2019 and 2020. This significant difference advocates the need for standardized policy and practice guidelines, which ensure the quality of care, minimize safety risks, and improve the organization’s performance.

This underperformance in diabetes patients negatively influences the quality of care by hampering the early detection of complications such as neuropathy and diabetic foot ulcers. Timely identification of these issues is essential to prevent the progression of these complications into infections, further leading to increased leg pain, decreased mobility, and amputation (Carmichael et al., 2021). Failure to meet these benchmark standards demonstrates the lack of comprehensive care, diminishing patient trust and satisfaction. 

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal

On the other hand, this underperformance increases the demand for medical interventions and extends hospital stays, straining the organization’s financial and human resources. The heightened costs related to complex and extensive treatment comprise the effective operations of the organization (Moucheraud et al., 2019). Moreover, diminished patients’ trust increases reputational risks, affecting the organization’s position in the healthcare industry. However, undressed underperformance of foot examinations has several repercussions for diabetic patients.

Delayed detection and intervention results in severe complications, advancing the disease, increasing healthcare costs for individuals and the organization, and deteriorating quality of life for patients. Continued non-compliance with standardized benchmarks may jeopardize an organization’s accreditation, affecting internal and external collaborations and eligible reimbursements (Hussein et al., 2021). Thus, MMC stakeholders should advocate for profound policy and practice guidelines to ensure the successful implementation of foot examinations, preventing individual and organizational risks. 

Policies and Procedures for the Organization

Based on the guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA), we established a policy for MMC to address underachieved foot examinations. The policy is as follows:

“The organization must conduct annual comprehensive foot examinations for type I and type II diabetic patients to recognize the predictive factors for foot ulcers and diabetic neuropathy. These examinations should include foot inspection, checking for the pulses, and testing foot sensations” (CMS, n.d.). The practice guidelines for comprehensive foot examination include patients’ history and general exam, neuropathy assessment, vascular assessment, and referral/follow-up. 

• Patient History and General Exam: Healthcare providers must gather data on any past ulcerations or amputations and history of peripheral vascular disease. Moreover, they should assess patients’ renal function and foot assessment to check for disorders and deformities, respectively (ADA, n.d.). 
• Neuropathy Assessment includes assessing foot sensations using tuning fork vibration, ankle reflexes, and Vibration Perception Threshold (VPT). VPT is a foremost assessment measure for diabetic patients to assess peripheral neuropathy by identifying sensitivity issues (ADA, n.d.). 
• Vascular Assessment: Evaluating foot pulses is essential as a lack of pulses reflects the signs of diabetic neuropathy and lack of tissue perfusion (ADA, n.d.).

NHS FPX 6004 Assessment 2 Policy Proposal

• Referral or Follow-up: Healthcare providers should decide whether the patient needs a referral or a follow-up based on risk categories (RC) after performing all these assessments. These are subdivided into four categories – RC 0 = no risk of diabetic neur