Quality Management Program Presented by Denise Treadwell July 2016.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How To Impact Your Research: An Overview of Research Support Services Quincy J. Byrdsong, Terri Hagan, and Alice Owens-Gatlin Research Services Consultants.
Advertisements

A Self Study Process for WCEA Catholic High Schools
Orientation for New Site Visitors CIDA’s Mission, Value, and the Guiding Principles of Peer Review.
Quality Improvement/ Quality Assurance Amelia Broussard, PhD, RN, MPH Christopher Gibbs, JD, MPH.
©2013 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Information current as of December 2, 2013 Recent Changes in ACGME Policy.
Section 29 Education Act, 1998 Appeal Process. Grounds for Appeal Exclude a pupil permanently Suspension of 20 days in any one school year Refusal to.
1 14. Project closure n An information system project must be administratively closed once its product is successfully delivered to the customer. n A failed.
HAAGA-HELIA’s accreditation process stages for AACSB Fall 2010Spring 2011Fall The applicant school establishes AACSB International membership.
[Hospital Name | Presenter name and title | Date of presentation]
Standard 5: Patient Identification and Procedure Matching Nicola Dunbar, Accrediting Agencies Surveyor Workshop, 10 July 2012.
A Possible SE 685 Project Automated Reviewers’ Report For ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)
Revenue Cycle Management Medical Technology Acquisition and Assessment Team Members: Joseph Dixon, Michael Morotti, Mari Pirie-St. Pierre, David Robbins.
Do it pro bono. Key Messages & Brand Strategy Service Grant.
NJAIS/Middle States Accreditation For Kent Place School Presented by: James Palmieri & Kathy Zagorski August 31, 2010.
Highlights from Dr. Robin Dasher-Alston To Periodic Review Report Committee November 24, 2003.
Consistency in Accreditation ASPA April 4, 2011 Department of Medical Laboratory Science Rush University Herb Miller, Ph.D. NAACLS.
January 18, 2012 Administrative Council Presentation.
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND PATIENT SAFETY. WHAT IS QUALITY ?
Questions: AAHRPP Evaluation Instrument for Use with Final Revised Accreditation Standards Presented by: C. Karen Jeans, MSN, CCRN, CIP COACH Program Analyst,
ASME C&S Training Module B7 MODULE B - PROCESS SUBMODULES B1. Organizational Structure B2. Standards Development: Roles and Responsibilities B3. Conformity.
Department of Quality and Regulatory Affairs Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center The Karmanos Cancer Center Regulatory Readiness (for Non Clinical Staff)
BIM Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Technical Standards Branch Class B Bridge Inspection Course Inspection Policies and Procedures INSPECTION POLICIES.
College of American Pathologists 1 New Directions in LAP Robert R. Rickert, MD, FCAP Chair, Accreditation Committee Laboratory Accreditation Program Copyright.
Lost to Follow Up Challenges: Data and Systems for Tracking and Surveillance.
On-site Survey Debriefing CASA Child, Adolescent and Family Mental Health 21/10/ /10/2013.
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006 JoLynn Noe, Assistant Director Office of Assessment
Shared Visions – New Pathways George Mason University College of Nursing and Health Science Regulatory Requirements for Health Systems Summer 2004 Understanding.
Marketing Pharmaceutical Care Dr. Muslim Suardi, MSi., Apt. Faculty of Pharmacy University of Andalas 2010.
Subcommittee Review a.k.a. DMR after FCR D – designated M – member R – review What we do by … F – full C – committee R – review What we do at meetings.
SACS/CASI District Accreditation  January 2007  April 2007  May 2007  January – April 2008  Board Approval for Pursuit of District Accreditation.
Notes for Trainers (Day Training)
Evaluator Training Workshop March 1, 2012 Jeff Jordan Vice President for Student Life Seattle Pacific University.
WORKSHOP ON ACCREDITATION OF BODIES CERTIFYING MEDICAL DEVICES INT MARKET TOPIC 6 CH 5 ISO MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY Philippe Bauwin Medical.
1 1 Why are we doing this? Governance Update We need to evolve o Membership has increased by 16,000 members (almost doubled) in the last.
Council of International Schools “Your Worldwide Partner in International Education” Our Mission The Council of International Schools (CIS) is a not-for-profit.
California Department of Public Health California Department of Public Health Accreditation Readiness Team (ART) Orientation Office of Quality Performance.
Performance-Based Accreditation
Outline of Quality assurance and accreditation
Getting More Involved with NFRC
The Joint Commission’s 2011 National Patient Safety Goals
DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITY OF PRISHTINA/KOSOVO
Clinical Learning Environment Review GMEC January 8, 2013
NATA Foundation Student Grants Process
Magnet Site Visit Briefing
Well Trained International
Self-Study Instrument for Early Childhood Centers EDITION
Strategies to Reduce Antibiotic Resistance and to Improve Infection Control Robin Oliver, M.D., CPE.
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
Accreditation Canada Medicine Accreditation 2016.
Quality Assurance Ten Step Studies
Overview of the FEPAC Accreditation Process
AAHRPP Accreditation Welcome to the University of Georgia’s presentation for accreditation of the human research protection program (HRPP). This presentation.
Debriefing Presentation Covenant Health
Faculty Evaluation Plan
Foothill College Accreditation Self-Study Update
[INSERT APPLICABLE REGIONAL ENTITY NAME/LOGO]
ASSISTANCE DOGS INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES 2018
Validation Team Exit Report
Validation Team Exit Report
Validation Team Exit Report
Academic Approval System
Universal Oral Defense PowerPoint Working Group
Strategic Planning.
Fort Valley State University
Senate Meeting Summary
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
QUALITY ASSURANCE OF EDUCATION AND
Office Or Outpatient Centers Are The Best Place To Perform Most Arterial And Venous Interventional Treatments: Precautions And Current Status Of Their.
Validation Team Exit Report
Validation Team Exit Report
Presentation transcript:

Quality Management Program Presented by Denise Treadwell July 2016

The CAMTS Quality Management Program is focused on the processes and standards to allow for evaluation and re-evaluation in a continuous effort to improve performance and enhance best practices.

Committee Members Barbara Dunham Cheryl Wraa Heather McClellan Julia Spring Stan Kocol Andrew Farkas Charlann Staab James Houser Steve Sittig Eileen Frazer Karen Rogers Shelley Dixon Dudley Smith Tammy Rush Garett Hickman Jan Eichel

Mission Statement CAMTS is dedicated to improving patient care and transport safety by providing a dynamic accreditation process through the development of standards, education and services that support our vision.

Vision All patients are transported safely by qualified personnel using the most appropriate mode of transport.

Board Deliberation Comparisons Periodically the Quality Committee will select one or two programs and assign them to two different Board members for their review, presentation and accreditation recommendation to the full Board. Neither Board member knows a second Board member is doing the same program and all presentations to the Full Board are identified only by a number. The intent is to measure how consistent the Board is in identifying areas of Concern, Deficiency and Strength, and, most importantly, the final accreditation decision. At the July 2016 Board meeting two programs were selected. In the first case the Full Board heard the presentation and the second Board member presented any differences they had identified. In the second case the program was presented in two different accreditation subcommittees of the Board. The comparisons of each are on the following slides.

Case one: Full Board Presentation and Second Independent Board Reviewer Both recommended the same three areas of acknowledgement Board review B had a few more that the full Board had eliminated Both identified the same areas of concern Both identified the same areas of deficiency Both recommended the same final recommendation which the Full Board accepted. The Board presentation were nearly identical with the Full Board making some changes by eliminating some items or moving them into another classification. Overall the comparisons were remarkably similar.

Case two: Each Board member presented to a different accreditation subcommittee Presenter A included blinded general photos of the program which Presenter B did not Subcommittees A and B each identified the same 2 areas of Acknowledgement Subcommittee A found no areas of Concern and 7 Deficiency (adding one not identified by presenter B) Subcommittee B found 1 area of Concern and 5 areas of Deficiency Both subcommittees voted for full reaccreditation but Subcommittee A also suggested a strong message about their missing and out of date medical protocols. While there were slight differences between the two, the results where the same.

Other Evaluations These evaluations have not been used yet, but are ready to be pushed out using the same process: – New accreditations to evaluate CAMTS process – Program to evaluate SS for Supplemental / Consult / Other – Board to evaluate Lead Site Surveyor Documentation – Lead to evaluate new SS partner after first survey – New SS Self Evaluation after first survey – Board Member Self Evaluation

QM has helped us to identify Revisions or specific areas that we need to address with: – CAMTS Standards – CAMTS Policies & Procedures – Timeliness of the Site Survey Process – Site Surveyor Performance – Board Meeting Deliberation – Customer Satisfaction

Reportable Events How Can We Identify These? – Site Surveyors mixing program materials together when completing reports for multiple programs – Site Surveyors interfering with safe practices during site visit – Site Surveyor projecting Board Decisions on specific items identified during the survey – Site Surveyor projecting Board Decisions regarding Accreditation outcomes – Notification letter to the program not reporting the Board findings / decisions accurately