China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Tying Things Together
Published in Jennifer Doley, Mary J. Marian, Adult Malnutrition, 2023
Competency evaluation is critical to ensure RDNs are able to correctly perform a nutrition assessment, resulting in the successful outcome of diagnosing malnutrition. Competency assessment can be achieved through a variety of methods including an observed performance using a competency checklist tool42 or through a formalized observation structured exam.28 The Academy includes a competency assessment tool in their NFPE Hands-on Training Program43 which can be used by trainers to assess competency of RDNs in NFPE performance. Clinical peer review audits are another method to assess malnutrition diagnostic competency.44
Soundings from a sample of top leaders in health
Published in Denise Chaffer, Baroness Emerton, Effective Leadership, 2016
Denise Chaffer, Baroness Emerton
In terms of ongoing monitoring of a leadership team’s effectiveness, Trish advocates greater monitoring of a number of metrics by a range of stakeholders, including the trust board, the CCG and others. Examples of this include staff turnover, evidence of staff development, and patient feedback. Trish believes the work she previously led at the London Strategic Health Authority with the medical director, included some very effective models for monitoring safety and quality in trusts applying for foundation trust status. This included on-site peer review visits in addition to a table top review of key documents, providing comprehensive reports relating to each trust. The trusts visited received a clinical team who spoke to patients and staff and generated a detailed report of their findings. Trish’s view is there is a need to further develop this type of clinical peer review as a means of sharing best practice and driving improvements.
Departmental Resources: Mentors, Money and Models
Published in David A. Katerndahl, Directing Research in Primary Care, 2018
When establishing a departmental mentorship program, you must start with an environment that encourages collaboration. This can be more difficult than it sounds because there are often inherent barriers within departments and institutions. Such barriers include jealousy, geographic separation, and financial reasons, as well as differences in promotion criteria and grant support (Mukamal et al, 2002). However, as Table 14.1 shows, there are strategies for promoting collaboration within departments and institutions. As research director, you need to encourage supportive faculty interaction via social activities, faculty development, promotion of interaction and cross-fertilization, and clinical peer review. The departmental chair can further support collaboration through inclusive governance, acknowledging the value of integration, faculty evaluation, provision of support staff, and development of centers of excellence, and financial measures such as rewarding collaboration, providing incentives, and compensating equitably. Finally, medical schools can encourage interdisciplinary collaboration via comparable promotional criteria, educator–researcher pairings, and incentives (Mukamal et al, 2002). When initiating a mentorship program, the provision of a conducive environment is again essential. Thus, the research director and chair should encourage an open environment, facilitate interactions between junior and senior faculty, explicitly plan career paths, and provide opportunities for faculty to network with faculty outside of the department (Stange and Hekelman, 1990). Once the department is prepared, recruitment of mentors and proteges can begin, keeping in mind the characteristics of good mentors, and the requirements of the mentor-protege relationship as presented above. Proteges are then oriented to the program, receive workshop training concerning mentorship, and select their mentors. Proteges are prompted to contact their chosen mentor, mentor-protege pairs are provided with recommendations for mentorship activities, and the research director monitors progress, prepared to make revisions as necessary (Morzinski et al, 1994).
Clinical peer Review; A mandatory process with potential inherent bias in desperate need of reform
Published in Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 2021
Husam Bader, Mohammad Abdulelah, Rama Maghnam, David Chin
Clinical peer review is an essential process in healthcare. Under the current laws, a physician’s medical decision can be peer reviewed and investigated at any given time. Hospitals can terminate physicians and report physicians to the NPDB while being investigated. Due to the potential impact and consequences of peer review, we believe reviewers need to be conscientious of the biases that can involuntarily influence one’s decision and invest conscious effort into producing a fair unprejudiced clinical conclusion. Those efforts will further help uphold this important process.