Project Due with Summary Statement

MONITORING TOOLS 9

Monitoring tools for compliance plans

Weltee Wolo

Rasmussen College

Author Note

This paper is being submitted on June 05, 2017 Nichole Crais’s

Regulation and Compliance in Healthcare H340/HSA3422 course

Compliance plan one: Professionalism

Benchmarking

This is a tool that has been used over time by managers of major institutions. According to the Joint Commission Resources & Joint Commission International (2012), these are the measurements that one gives against set standards that are externally acknowledged. This tool would be ideal to monitor the standards of professionalism. As in all professions, health care also has its set of rules that people should work against. This means that it would be easy to identify a red flag if the professional standards were not followed based on the already established standards. This tool is easy to use as the standards are already created and, they often cut across regions, and therefore they are more reliable as compared to most of the other monitoring tools (JCR, 2008).

Identified risk indicator reviews

This monitoring tool acts as red flag identifier. The risk factors are noncompliance to the professionalism that one is expected to meet in this case (Youngberg, 2011). This is a document that is drafted, and each professional expectation at the local level is identified. After which the individuals are marked with each indicator so as to see the shortcoming that quickly leads to finding out just where a person missed out in their professionalism track record. This can be used monthly or biannually based on the urgency of the situation. The value of this review is that the staff or the manager can fill them out. A person other than the targeted individual is an ideal way of filling reviews since they are aware of how one works and will provide honest insight (JCR, 2008). This tool is subject to bias based on favoritism from the manager or unfairness by the staff filling it for another one that is rivals to him.

Self assessments

Self-assessments are reviews just as the ones mentioned above only that they are filled with the targeted staff as opposed to a secondary party filling it on her behalf. This is ideal as it is believed that a person knows himself more than people do him. With this in mind, the employee is expected to fill the assessments with utmost honesty and identify their areas of weakness to make it realistic. The problem with this monitoring tool is that it also subject to bias (Brown, 2016). Proud staff may not see their weaknesses and the areas that they need to improve in. For that reason, they are likely only to give their positive attributes thereby making the process irrelevant.

Surveys and questionnaires

According to Troklus, Vacca & Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (2015), these are filled out by staff, but they are anonymous in nature. Unlike the first tools, these can be used more often especially after the identification of a red flag. These are random in nature as they are required to express vastness and actual problems. The use of these tools is for the purpose of problem identification as well as for securing feedback (Kusserow, 2005). It means that the results of these tools are to be broadly applied to improving the health facility other than track offenders alone. They are the opinions of the staff on what the hospital has to do in implementation of the policies in addition to what they are doing to contribute as staff.

Anonymous hotspot identifiers

These are external tools that are used by the patients being served in problem identification. These can be sites that are used by those that have a negative experience at the facility while receiving their care (Niles, 2016). They can be used to identify unprofessionalism among the facility’s staff, specifying the names and the exactly what happened that was right to be unprofessional. It is likely that a patient will lie so they are reliable and can be effective if the information is used appropriately.

Compliance plan two: healthy and fair behavior/ client compliance

Hotline statistics

A hotline, in this case, is a direct line that patients can use to state complaints of their experience (Ozcan, 2008). This tool is used to complain about behavior from the staff and patients alike. The more the statistics indicate negative drawing in a curve of the number of calls versus the purpose of the calls, the more it shows that people are not conducting themselves as per the compliance plans established by the institution. According to the Emergency department compliance manual (2013), a more positive outcome means that there are higher levels of compliance and positive behavior among the staff and the clients visiting the facility.

Focus groups

Once in a while, the staff can meet to discuss progress. The compliance managers can use this opportunities to establish focus group discussions among the staff so as to determine the shortcoming that they are facing. As this second policy demands proper behavior from the clients, the staff can identify the unpleasant behavior that they got to deal with in the course of the day. The results are then used to either adjust or reinforce the policy that was not fully complied with by whatever the category that has been identified. The positive attribute of this tool is that it promotes honesty and openness among those that are affected and makes a platform for positive contribution about how best to handle problems (Brown & Harris, 2016).

Trend analysis especially in accounting

Negative behavior can also be identified by looking at the accounting and finances. Affirmative action demands that services be charged appropriately and at the time of service as well as honestly. Negative trends would take the form of missing figures, exaggerated figures, charges being made way after the patient has left the facility or even figures that do not add up whatsoever (Harrington, 2016). When such trends are analyzed, it is easy for one to identify problems of financial behavior well in advance, and the necessary actions are taken. For this particular tool, there should be extreme caution as financial issues are often delicate ones that can incriminate an individual. According to JCR & JCI (2012), this is further an efficient tool as the figures indicate the various transactions as they were done.

Training completion data

Korniewicz (2015), states that behavior training is a way through which proper behavior is encouraged. For good standards to be met there should be a specific number of training hours that staff must acquire. In addition to the hours, the staff must have met the objectives of the training and consequently filled a form to indicate the same. Any shortcoming on this requirement means that the staff will not meet the necessary compliance requirement.

Codes of conduct

These are sets of rules and regulations that health care providers and clients must oblige with while within the facility (Morrison, 2011). They are used to promote the provision of quality care and maintenance of order at all times. Monitoring against the codes of conducts is similar to that done in the benchmarking process. The only difference, in this case, is that they cut across to include clients that visit the facility. Any violation of behavior is often subjected to a comparison with the related codes of conduct at the facility. This is a useful tool as they are a set of already establishment standards that are not easily altered so as to enhance reliability.

References

Top of Form

Emergency department compliance manual: 2013 edition. (2013). Place of publication not

identified: Kluwer Law International.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Harrington, M. K. (2016). Health care finance and the mechanics of insurance and

reimbursement. Burlington, MA : Jones & Bartlett Learning

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

In Brown, G. T. L., & In Harris, L. R. (2016). Handbook of human and social conditions in

assessment. New York : Routledge

Top of Form

In Korniewicz, D. M. (2015). Nursing leadership and management: The advanced practice role.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania : DEStech Publications, Inc.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Joint Commission Resources, Inc. (2008). Tools for performance measurement in health care: A

quick reference guide. Oakbrook Terrace, Ill: Joint Commission Resources.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Joint Commission Resources, Inc., & Joint Commission International. (2012). Benchmarking in

health care. Oakbrook Terrace, lL: Joint Commission Resources.

Top of Form

Kusserow, R. P. (2008). The healthcare compliance professional's guide to policies and

procedures. Maarblehead, MA: HCPro.

Top of Form

Morrison, E. E. (2011). Ethics in health administration: A practical approach for decision

makers. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Top of Form

Niles, N. J. (2016). Basics of the U.S. health care system. Burlington, MA : Jones & Bartlett

Learning

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Ozcan, Y. A. (2008). Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation: An assessment

using data envelopment analysis (DEA). New York: Springer.

Top of Form

Troklus, D., Vacca, S., & Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2015). Compliance 101:

How to build and maintain an effective compliance and ethics program. Minneapolis, MN: Society of Corporate Compliance & Ethics.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Youngberg, B. J. (2011). Principles of risk management and patient safety. Sudbury, MA: Jones

and Bartlett Publishers.

Bottom of Form