MHA 560 UP Week 3 the Red Bag Waste Reduction Initiative Paper
Description
Create a list or mind map of the patient services offered at the health care setting you selected for your sustainability initiative.
Identify which services are affected by your sustainability initiative, and brainstorm ways that the initiative will improve patient care and outcomes.
Write a paper that evaluates how your sustainability initiative will improve patient care and outcomes.
Include your list or mind map of the patient services offered and provide details of how the services will improve once your initiative is implemented.
Cite 3 reputable references to support your assignment (e.g., trade or industry publications, government or agency websites, scholarly works, or other sources of similar quality).
Running head: SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE Sustainability Initiative, Part 1 Brandy Blue University of Phoenix MHA/560 March 17, 2020 1 SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE 2 Sustainability Initiative, Part 1 The sustainability initiative proposed for implementation at the Hospital of The University of Pennsylvania is that of the red bag waste reduction. Additionally, the vision statement to confirm the effective implementation of this initiative remains to be the first successful hospital within the Philadelphia area within the management of medical waste through the effective use of the red bag waste reduction initiative. The outcomes to be achieved within the future include reduction of waste within the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Another finding that is to induce fulfilled through the utilization of the red bag waste reduction initiative is minimizing cost spend while reducing and managing waste (Garcia, 2016). The removal fees for medical waste is typically between five and ten times over that of removing solid waste (Woolridge & Hoboy, 2019). Therefore, the utilization of this initiative will help in reducing the removal fees for medical waste. Further, the effort will play a major role in process management. The implementation of this initiative, the Hospital of The University of Pennsylvania, will access the department, which generates the highest amount of waste overall. Once the department has gotten established, the strategy will get implemented on a priority basis. A number of the outcomes sought out to get achieved during and after the implementation of this particular sustainability initiative include that the staff will have gained more skills in effective waste management (Woolridge & Hoboy, 2019). The staff within the identified department at the Hospital of The University of Pennsylvania, in general, will have gained more skills that will get used to reduce medical waste in their respective places of employment. Additionally, staff will also be trained and sensitized on the type of waste they are permitted to place within the red bag SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE 3 and waste, which they cannot. This information will help make sure that the red bag gets utilized accurately to scale back waste within the hospital. After successful implementation of the sustainability initiative within the identified department and recognizing significant successes or achievements, the action will then imply implementation within other medical patient care areas similarly as throughout the hospital. Such areas may include dialysis areas, blood drawing areas, laboratories, and operating rooms (McGurk, 2015). A significant outcome that will be achieved by the red bag waste reduction initiative could be a change within the organizational culture at the Hospital of The University of Pennsylvania. The culture of the staff and management are changed and, more specifically, how they relate to the environment and the way they manage waste (Datta et al., 2018). As a result, a positive organizational culture linked to waste management will get developed at the hospital. Another outcome is that the hospital policies will get revisited and updated so that they can satisfy and include the sustainability initiative. Moreover, the waste disposal regulations that currently exist at the Hospital of The University of Pennsylvania will get amended to include the red bag waste reduction initiative. A key deliverable expected from the implementation of the red bag waste reduction initiative is that the reduction remains within the likely hood of minimizing the occurrence of workplace accidents and worker exposure. For instance, the careless disposal of syringes exposes the staff and patients to considerable risk levels (Datta et al., 2018). However, the implementation of this initiative will make sure that this risk and exposure gets significantly reduced. Further, the environment will remain protected through reduced environmental pollution. Within the future, the red bag waste reduction initiative will improve the reputation of the hospital and build a vision for buy-in from other outside sources (McGurk, 2015). Therefore, SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE other companies would love to be associated with a hospital that cares about the environment as well as having a useful means of a waste management system. 4 SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE 5 References Garcia, R. (2016). Effective Cost-Reduction Strategies in the Management of Regulated Medical Waste. American Journal of Infection Control, 27(2), 165-175. Datta, P., Mohi, G. K., & Chander, J. (2018). Biomedical waste management in India: Critical appraisal. Journal of laboratory physicians, 10(1), 6. Woolridge, A., & Hoboy, S. (2019, January). Medical Waste. In Waste (pp. 517-530). Academic Press. McGurk, J. (2015). Greening of the Red-Bag Waste Stream. A Guidance Document for Successful Interventions to Reduce Medical Waste Generation in Californian Hospitals Environmental Management Branch: California Department of Health Services.
Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
Total Points: 100 | |||||