Measurements Health Care Required Resources Media Course

¶ … Measurements Health Care Required Resources Media Course Media: Organizational Systems Leadership

The metrics used in the balanced scorecard and dashboard are both qualitative and quantitative, and can result in improvement in health care services (Frith et al., 2010, p. 10). As such, they play a significant influence in the nursing practice for different organizations, because they provide an objective means of measuring various aspects of health care services. Specifically, the balanced scorecard and dashboards stratifies health care into four primary components: training for health care workers, resources for facilities, provision of service and community satisfaction (Chan et al., 2010, p. 709). These metrics are principally used to inform health care practitioners about specific areas of improvement, or those in which they are providing excellent service and resources. In several instances, the metrics for the individual areas of analyses were developed by evaluating and comparing national standards (Chan et al., 2010, p. 709) to those of a particular healthcare facility. In these instances, there is a tangible means of comparison that can facilitate the exchange of vital information for assessment and improvement. It is important to note that there was a degree of prioritization among the different facets of service and resources compartmentalized in the scoreboard and dashboard, which was partially related to "significance, potential for improvement and ease of data collection" (Chan et al., 2010). Thus, clinicians knew just what they needed to do to better obtain organizational objectives.

At my particular organization, its goals are certainly established with the sort of metrics denoted in the balanced scorecard and dashboard that was discussed in the readings. It is important for every healthcare organization to know that its workers are competent, its resources are substantial enough to ameliorate patients and assist workers, as well as to know that it is reaching the surrounding community. Yet there are other metrics that specify the degree of participation in a balanced scorecard and dashboard approach to ascertain whether or not employees are taking it seriously, as well as their jobs of improving quality for healthcare facilities and participants. These metrics include those for "initial registration, active program participation, and program completion" (Grossmeier et al., 2010, p. 2). They also pertain to satisfaction metrics, in which individuals can explain how satisfied they were with getting coaching and feedback to improve their performance and that of the facility in which they are based. My organization certainly has goals in place to meet these satisfaction and program participation metrics as well. At present, all of the goals related to the aforementioned metrics are being met. However, it is noteworthy to mention that the most eminent of these goals being met are those pertaining to employee participation and level of satisfaction with the balanced scorecard and dashboard.

The external standard against which these metrics are being compared pertains to national averages amongst various health care facilities and, to a lesser extent, those based in the particular area in which a facility is located. That sort of information has definitely been entered into the goal-setting process for the individual metrics. There is national data pertaining to virtually all of the metrics that is used to influence the particular standards and level of goals required in my personal facility. For instance, population-level health risk reduction standards at my organization were largely determined by accordant measures made "available annually on a representative proportion of the overall population and…based on information that is representative of current health status as well as retrospective measures of health captured by claims data review" (Grossmeier et al., 2010, p. 2). Generally speaking, the individuals at my organization that set the goals for our scorecard (which are upper-level management officials) were extremely cognizant of national standards for the majority of the metrics employed. Thus, they were able to set goals that were realistic from a national perspective, and which also took into account some local standards as well. It is worth mentioning that for the majority of the metrics, the local standards were not too far from those of national standards.