Business Case for Quality improvement

Business Case for Quality improvement

Student's Name

Institution Affiliation

Professor

Date

Course

Abstract

There is an increasing belief and interest in using quality improvement to solve the more daily complex challenges in various healthcare firms, yet less literature review to assist the students in developing and evaluating a business case n return investment from quality improvement. Quality improvement is noticed in community health services and mental healthcare. The paper, therefore, discusses a framework to assist in evaluating the return on investment and understand and identify the return on investment from a more extensive application of quality improvement to healthcare providers. The framework has been developed at ELFT, a predominantly provider of community and mental healthcare services to over 1 million individuals practicing quality improvement at scale since late 2014. The case study presents examples illustrating return on investment hence improving efficiency and productivity, staff experience, cost reduction, revenue increment, and patients results

Business Case for Quality improvement

Introduction

According to Hill (2020), most healthcare providers recognize the benefits of quality improvement, which helps transform the health system through quality assurance and performance management. The transformation through quality assurance and performance management assists healthcare providers and others in progressing from good to excellent levels in healthcare programs (Rohrich & Pomerantz, 2021), increasing recognition among healthcare providers. In applying a quality improvement scale, return on investment brings about the creative, strategic ability of the healthcare providers that drive increased revenue in the firm (Fischer & Duncan, 2020). Due to innovative strategic skills in the organization, the firm is aligned more directly for a common purpose of quality improvement in care; therefore, there is cost reduction, leading to improved productivity and efficiency among healthcare providers (Chartier et al., 2019).

The comprehensive framework below helps leaders access and articulate the return on investment by using quality improvement at scale. The framework comes from the work found at East London Foundation NHS Trust. The comprehensive framework from East London Foundation NHS Trust comprises revenue, cost reduction, cost avoidance, efficiency and productivity, self-experience, and patient and family experience results. Calculating the return-on-investment process needs evaluation of benefits and costs as the framework for calculating costs incurred and systematically evaluating benefits. Therefore, calculating return on investment provides the health system providers and others an opportunity to explore, analyze and provide them with sound reasoning for the business case to qualify in health firms. The methods used by the East London Foundation NHS Trust framework for evaluating return on investment include revenue, cost reduction, cost avoidance, efficiency and productivity, staff experience, and family and patient experience results.

Analysis of Return on Investment

Staff Experience

This method of evaluation of return on investment gives the staff more control over the system they are working on, hence helping the team feel more engaged in their work, resulting in more autonomy to make changes in the healthcare organization. The research lays more substantial evidence illustrating how healthcare providers who are more engaged and happier in their work duty deliver better patient outcomes and improved financial results in the healthcare firm. According to Ogbonnaya & Babalola (2021), the quality improvement process necessitates power development for staff members to assist them in solving their issues. The quality improvement process equips healthcare workers with skills and tools to help them tackle and identify problems methodically. The figure below illustrates that the general staff engagement was highest across 57 community and mental health trusts in 2016. The figure below shows that East London Foundation NHS Trust, in the fourth consecutive year, has been in the top 5. In 2014 and 2016, the staff who were feeling to contribute towards work improvement indicated the highest score among all NHS healthcare provider firms.

Revenue

According to Shah & Course (2018), the application of the quality improvement scale explores new strategic skills within a healthcare firm, supplementing competitive merit within the market. The competitive distinction supplemented can realize the importance of attracting revenue by attaining new business reputations for improvement and quality. The figure below illustrates how East London Foundation NHS Trust's Revenue has escalated over some years. Focusing on quality helps demonstrate improved outcomes through the reputation for being a quality leader and quality improvement; contribution to new business acquisition results from health providers possessing quality leader traits. A quality improvement specialist creates an opportunity to support firms with similar endeavors, like the East London Foundation NHS Trust, that generate little revenue. The specialist delivers coaching sessions and training to different firms in the Quality Improvement journey, leading to small revenue generation through the specialist faculty. Usage of data more rigorously and with continuous improvement helps healthcare service providers to focus on matters mainly related to their service; hence services delivered are better in demonstrating the healthcare providers' work value. When the service value offered by the healthcare provider is easily explained, the healthcare personnel reduce the risk of losing service or even being decommissioned from a competing firm, thus the organization retaining its revenue.

Cost Reduction

Removing or reducing costs entirely from the firm helps support annual cost requirements directly for cost improvement existing within the NHS for healthcare providers in a firm (Kaplan & Porter, 2011). The figure below illustrates information obtained from the Ivory ward at East London Foundation NHS Trust that uses quality improvement to reduce bed occupancy on elderly adults' mental health awards. Quality improvement reduces the occupancy from an average of 89% to a sustained new level of 59% through the implementation of various changes comprising; a discharge scheduling checklist, strong social integration within discharge groups, day-to-day patient review, and good communication by providers in contact services in severe hospitals. On checking the graph values, the researcher's team spread the changes to Leadenhall, the same award in various parts of the firm; the team of researchers noticed a reduction in occupancy from 78% to 52%. The researchers noticed similar awards functioning closely to half full; they then made it possible to move only to one ward, raising the option of closing the other ward. Closure of one ward delivers a reduced cost of roughly $1 million every year. Quality improvement helps in cost improvement efforts for the English health economy since the provider's trust looks for ways of reducing their bottom line with a value close to 2-4% yearly.

Cost avoidance

Improving the firm in various areas of quality improvement work at times means avoiding substantial previous costs such as material, equipment, and staff cost incurred. The below illustrates data from East London Foundation NHS Trust on human team resources that work on improving the disciplinary trust process, therefore, reducing the average time of the research process from 110 days to 55 days, indicating a 50% decrease within 18 months. Cost avoidance reduces anxiety for individuals at the center of the healthcare activity and costs spent on staff member payment when suspended from work. ELFT finance team successfully calculated suspension costs in 2014 and 2015, using the calculations to estimate staff members suspended charges on a daily routine. From the analysis, it is probable to guess when the average disciplinary activity length can be reduced by fifty days sustainably. Cases numbers remain constant, leading to an annual cost avoidance of close to $429,000 (Brown et al., 2015).

In the examples below, ELFT has estimated costs avoided by decreasing physical violence in older mental adult health. The economic models comprise finance teams with clinicians to know what happens when a patient becomes violent in the ward and evaluate costs associated with violence. Research on adults illustrated a cost violence reduction from $100,000 for nine months before reducing to $50,000. 35% decrease in violent incidents led to a 50% decrease in violence costs.

Martorell Lackamp (2018) calculates the economic evaluation of costs of suspension per day at ELFT as per 2014 – 2015 data, as illustrated below in the calculation.

Shah & Course (2018) calculated the economic evaluation of costs attributable to violence before and after the QI projects, as shown below.

According to Taylor-Watt et al. (2017), improving staff experience and safety at work centers leads to reduced staff absence, as the examples above have computed. They use temporary agency staff, and staff sickness reduction results from relevant cost avoidance opportunities to improve staff experience and safety. Staff turnover costs such as onboarding and recruitment are easily avoided when the staff remains with the employing firms.

Efficiency and productivity

Quality improvement eliminates waste from the firm and reduces unwanted firm variations by supporting the teams to concentrate on matters related to their firm. By eliminating non-valuable adding procedures in the quality improvement process and restructuring care around the things that have valuable meaning to the service user, the teams are likely to notice efficiency and productivity improvements. These efficient and productive improvements allow clinicians and groups to concentrate on patient care. The figure below shows data from ELFT clinic clozapine in Hackney and City that reduces the time to return blood test outcomes and variation to clinicians. The efficient and productive improvement assists consumers in receiving more predictable services faster, allowing healthcare providers to plan efficiently.

The figure illustrated below shows a collaborative learning system from ELFT on improving flow and access in society teams, having 16 teams from a range of clinical services by use of quality improvement in improving the process from the referral and assessment to treatment. Clinical providers have decreased days in which individuals wait from referral to first-day appointment by 25% over two years, the non-attendance at an initial meeting by 40%, a 26% increment in referral number received at the same time a reduction of 40% and 25%. Decreasing waiting days for patients from referral to the first day of the appointment and the non-attendance at an initial meeting with an increment of referral number received makes clinicians more productive and efficient. In tariff-based systems, the firms are likely to gain income from improving throughput and flow. However, the system contains less income or discernible cost effects in the block contract system for various mental health providers in England.

Family and patient experience outcome

The key reason for quality improvement applications in healthcare firms is to improve results for patients suffering from severe conditions. In ELFT, every individual is invited to consider the critical things that matter families, service users, patients, and staff members working together to receive care. Most firms use quality improvement in solving outstanding issues affecting the firm. By concentrating on what matters to the organizations, the people in different firms delivering and receiving care are attempting to design their quality improvement work as meaningful and individual as possible. The purpose of any healthcare provider is to improve the outcomes and experience of the patients or population at large; hence the business case for the quality improvement aspect needs to align directly with the firm's core purpose.

Conclusion

Considering large-scale activities and applications of quality improvement in a firm, consider the return on investment at multiple stages. The main gear of such a strategic decision is improving experiences and outcomes for individuals receiving care. The firm earns shares from staff motivation and enhanced engagement hence improving the efficiency and productivity of the staff members, the possibility of an increase in revenue, reduction of cost, and avoidance of cost. The research proposes a framework for evaluating the return on investment from quality improvement within a reasonable time frame in the English NHS healthcare economy using a case example from the ELFT quality improvement program. The framework can be applied to large-scale quality improvement within various firms and healthcare. The framework evaluates direct customer benefits, improvement in work employees experience improvement in efficiency and productivity avoidance of costs, and business revenue increase. Efficiency and productivity improvement form the basis for calculating benefits and costs after that return on investment from quality improvement. Utilizing the framework discussed assists in articulating to main stakeholders that return on investment from quality investment can only be partially estimated in terms of costs eliminated from the firm. However, it may be a pushing need for most health economies. Multiple levels of return recognition assist in better linking quality improvement applications to the core strategic significance of healthcare by assessing impacts on patients' experience and results through the quality improvement process.

The high healthcare cost is an issue; most individuals in the United States report that they cannot afford healthcare, hence skipping not seeing the doctor. A survey conducted by the Kaiser family foundation indicates that each of the behaviors portrayed by the individuals results in serious health issues, thus increasing care costs. The daily health care issue shows it presents enormous opportunities though if not looked into keenly, it sometimes leads to various difficulties. The healthcare firm has noted the considerable disparities in healthcare results among multiple populations. The differences noted are not merely tied to the care cost and income; instead, they are connected to environmental factors that impact an individual's wellness and health. Short-term care is goal-oriented, as it involves assisting the patient in rescuing from everyday activities and returning home to a good functioning state. The benefits and costs related to the long-term are only aligned to achieve an investment for a period of a shorter time or during an investment period. However, the long-term care goal is classically conserving the patient's life and health quality for longer. The long-term costs and benefits are aligned with an organization's future betterment and prosperity. The long-term costs benefit the firm from a longer-term investment in prospective resources.

Most conflicts of interest arise when the stakeholders choose individual gain over duties of the healthcare firm where they are shareholders. When a shareholder exploits their position for individual growth in any way, the firm collapses as the shareholder exploiting the resources for self-gain uses more resources for personal benefit. The main stakeholders in a firm are suppliers, consumers, employees, and investors. When various stakeholders have varied objectives within a firm, the organization can therefore choose to satisfy varied shareholders' goals and maximize a single purpose to satisfy the firm needs.

The framework provides evidence that health system providers and others who invest in quality improvement notices a return on investment within a reasonable time frame by various methods, including; self-experience, revenue, cost reduction, cost avoidance, efficiency, and productivity. High healthcare costs can be solved by cutting down the care cost involving health actions and inputs by federal and state agencies. The vast disparity noted in healthcare firms can be solved by establishing various programs to meet a patient's needs. Various opportunities provided by the current healthcare can be looked into by using artificial intelligence that impacts administration and healthcare delivery.

References

Brown, J., Fawzi, W., McCarthy, C., Stevenson, C., Kwesi, S., Joyce, M., & Shah, A. (2015). Safer Wards: reducing violence on older people's mental health wards. BMJ Open Quality, 4(1), u207447-w2977. HYPERLINK "https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26734353" https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26734353.

Chartier, L. B., Mondoux, S. E., Stang, A. S., Dukelow, A. M., Dowling, S. K., Kwok, E. S. & Lang, E. (2019). How do emergency departments and leaders catalyze positive change through quality improvement collaborations? Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 21(4), 542–549. HYPERLINK "https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31608859" https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31608859.

Fischer, H. R., & Duncan, S. D. (2020). The business case for quality improvement. Journal of Perinatology, 40(6), 972–979. HYPERLINK "https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32231258" https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32231258.

Hill, J. E., Stephani, A. M., Sapple, P., & Clegg, A. J. (2020). The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 15(1), 1–14. HYPERLINK "https://www.doi.researchgate.net/publication/340773037" https://www.doi.researchgate.net/publication/340773037.

Kaplan, R. S., & Porter, M. E. (2011). How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev, 89(9), 46–52. HYPERLINK "https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21939127" https://pubmed.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21939127.

Martorell Lackamp, M. D. M. (2018) Economical analysis of the" ERTE": application to the case of tourism. HYPERLINK "https://www.doi.ilo.org" https://www.doi.ilo.org.

Ogbonnaya, C., & Babalola, M. T. (2021). A closer look at how managerial support can help improve patient experience: Insights from the UK's National Health Service. human relations, 74(11), 1820-1840. HYPERLINK "https://kar.doi.kent.ac.uk/92856" https://kar.doi.kent.ac.uk/92856.

Rohrich, R. J., & Pomerantz, P. (2021). Good to Great. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 148(5S), 33S-34S. HYPERLINK "https://pubmed.ncbi.doi.nlm.nih.gov/34699483" https://pubmed.ncbi.doi.nlm.nih.gov/34699483.

Shah, A., & Course, S. (2018). Building the business case for quality improvement: a framework for evaluating return on investment. Future healthcare journal, 5(2), 132. HYPERLINK "https://www.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502557" https://www.doi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502557.

Taylor-Watt, J., Cruickshank, A., Innes, J., Brome, B., & Shah, A. (2017). Reducing physical violence and developing a safety culture across wards in East London. British Journal of mental health nursing, 6(1), 35–43. HYPERLINK "https://www.doi.researchgate.net/publication/313113057" https://www.doi.researchgate.net/publication/313113057.