Evaluating process improvement projects requires a tool that tracks performance metrics and outcomes over time to assess success.
Option A (A dashboard): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, "Dashboards provide a visual summary of key performance indicators, enabling evaluation of process improvement project outcomes" (Domain 4). Dashboards track metrics like infection rates or cycle times, showing progress and impact.
Option B (A matrix diagram): Matrix diagrams analyze relationships between factors, not evaluate project outcomes.
Option C (A flow chart): Flow charts map processes, useful for planning, not evaluating results.
Option D (An Ishikawa diagram): Ishikawa diagrams identify root causes, not evaluate project performance.
CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.5, "Evaluate improvement project outcomes," emphasizes dashboards for monitoring performance. The NAHQ study guide notes, "Dashboards are effective for visualizing and communicating project results to stakeholders" (Domain 4).
Rationale: Dashboards provide a clear, data-driven evaluation of project outcomes, aligning with CPHQ's emphasis on performance measurement.
Reference: NAHQ CPHQ Study Guide, Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.5.

The provider's Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE) profile suggests that the provider partially meets expectations, meaning 40% to 64% of measures are at the threshold. According to the organization's criteria, this level of performance warrants retaining privileges but likely with closer monitoring or additional support.
* Partial Meeting of Expectations: When a provider partially meets expectations, it indicates that there are areas of performance that need improvement, but the provider is still performing sufficiently in enough areas to retain privileges.
* Next Steps: The provider should likely undergo further evaluation or targeted support to address the areas where performance is lacking. This might involve additional training, mentoring, or a Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE) if specific concerns are identified.
* Comparison to Other Options:
* A. The provider fully meets expectations; do nothing is not applicable since the provider does not fully meet the performance criteria.
* B. The provider does not meet expectations; refer to peer review would be appropriate if the provider's performance was below 40%, but that is not the case here.
* D. The provider meets expectations; retain privileges would be correct if the provider was in the
65% to 80% range, which is not the situation here.
References: NAHQ guidelines on OPPE and FPPE processes emphasize the importance of distinguishing between different levels of performance and applying the appropriate actions based on the specific thresholds met by the provider.
=========

Detailed Explanation:
HEDIS's goal is to ensure measurement and transparency in healthcare performance, making it possible to compare providers on standardized metrics.
Option C: Require both measurement and transparency
This aligns with NCQA's mission to promote accountability and transparency in healthcare.
References:
The CPHQ study materials on HEDIS emphasize measurement and transparency as core objectives of NCQA's public reporting standards.