View
218
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Assessing Patient Throughput at Kosair
Children’s Hospital Clinics
Craig Johnson
University of KentuckyMartin School of Public Policy and
AdministrationMasters in Health Administration
Capstone ProjectSpring 2008
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Background: Patient Throughput
• 67 million annual visits at hospital-based teaching ambulatory clinics (McCaig, 1997)
• Teaching organizations = longer waits (Leddy et al., 2003)
• Unorganized patient flow processes =increased wait times and decreased patient satisfaction (Roundeau, 1998)
• Interruptions during a patient’s exam negatively impact workflow (Brixey et al., 2007)
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Background: Patient Throughput
• Up to 40% of outpatient time could be spent inefficient processes (Patel et al., 2002)
• High patient no show rates = drained resources, hindered productivity, and loss revenues (Ginwala, 2004)
• Significantly reduce resident physician learning opportunities (Guse et al., 2003)
• Strategies to improve: – Mailed reminder cards (Croomer et al., 1987)– Automated telephone reminders (Almog et al.,
2003)– Termination and charge policies (Ginwala,
2004)– Open access scheduling (Murray et al., 2000)
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Project Purpose
• Assess the clinic’s current throughput processes through direct observations and data
collection
AND
• Assist clinic leadership with data analysis, industry benchmarking,
and recommendations for improvement
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Background: KCH Clinics
• 5 outpatient clinics all operate in one suite– Neurology– Genitourinary (GU)– Dermatology– Ear, Nose, & Throat (ENT)– Surgery
• Clinics rotate throughout the month, morning & afternoon clinics
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Thursday Friday
4NEURO:Puri
GU:Casale
5GU:Casale
6ENT:Goldman
DERM:Kasteler
7NEURO:McKiernan
SURG:Wiesenaur
8NEURO:Farber
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Background: KCH Clinics
• KCH employs a clinic staff which operates all 5 clinics– 2 Registered Nurses (RNs)– 3-4 Clinic Office Specialists
• KCH does not directly employ the physician staff– University of Louisville
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Background: Patient Population
• Children ages 0 – 18
• Participants of medical assistance programs or self paying
• Visits FY2007 4,038FY2008 4,100
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Methods
• Patient Flow Analysis– Flowchart
• Time Study– Process, Wait, & Face times
• Patient Satisfaction Survey– Point of service technique
• No Show Rates– Existing data
• General Observations– General flow, communication, & traffic
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Methods: Time Study Observation Form
• Once RN exited exam room, noted time a clinician entered and exited the patient’s room
• All times a patient spent in exam room without clinician defined as wait time
• Foreign Element column used to track exam room interruptions
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Methods: Patient Satisfaction Survey
• Questions grouped into five categories:
1. Appointment Scheduling
2. Patient Registration3. Waiting Room
Satisfaction4. Exam Room
Satisfaction5. Wait times
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Patient Flow Analysis
» Patients do not schedule their own appointments
» Clinic currently waiting for online referral access
» If physician is late, bottlenecks occur
» Bottlenecks occur during chart breakdown process
Is there
anything to schedule?
Is the referral found?
Resident reviews
chart & entersexam room
Is the call
from PCP?
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Time Study
• Patients spent majority of time waiting
• ENT: 64%• Derm: 74%
• Necessary prep/exit time:
– Registration = 7 min– Treatment = 1 min– Discharge = 2 min
Neuro GU Derm ENT Surgery
Min 0:56 1:22 0:59 0:44 0:46
Max 1:52 1:27 2:33 1:49 2:01
Sample Size 21 7 24 17 33
Total Cycle Time
Total Patient Experience -Average Values
Clinician20%
Waiting69%
Prep/Exit11%
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Time StudyWaiting Room
• Industry standard acceptable time for Registration and Wait = <15 minutes (NACHRI Presentation Mattel Children’s Hospital, 2007)
• KCH Clinic Average Registration & Wait using average values = 29 minutes
• Median values = 26 minutes
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Time StudyWaiting Room
Registration and Wait Time - Average Values
Reg0:06
Reg0:07
Reg0:07
Reg0:07
Reg0:06
Reg0:07
Wait0:16
Wait0:19
Wait0:38
Wait0:18
Wait0:21
Wait0:22
0:00
0:07
0:14
0:21
0:28
0:36
0:43
0:50
Neurology GU Dermatology ENT Surgery KCH ClinicAverage
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Time StudyFace Time vs. Wait Time
• Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Generic Clinic Benchmark: – Total visit time = clinician time
x 1.5
• KCH Clinic goal total visit time based on this benchmark:– 31 minutes = 21 min x 1.5
• KCH Clinic actual total visit time using average values = 70 minutes
• Median values = 62 minutes
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Time StudyFace Time vs. Wait Time
Face Time vs. Wait Time - Average Values
Face 0:24 Face
0:16
Face 0:25
Face 0:23 Face
0:17
Face 0:21
Face 0:21
Wait0:49
Wait0:42
Wait1:04
Wait0:40
Wait0:51
Wait0:49
Wait0:10
0:00
0:14
0:28
0:43
0:57
1:12
1:26
1:40
Neurology GU Dermatology ENT Surgery KCH ClinicAverage
IHI Benchmark
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: Patient Satisfaction Survey
• Total sample size = 74
• Neurology & Surgery collected 2/3 of total
• KCH clinics now have a baseline to measure against future surveys
• Satisfaction scores could be used to measure the success of future changes
Question Score
Ease scheduling appt 4.16
Appt when needed 3.86
Info received prior to visit
4.16
Ease reg. 4.59
Wait time reg. 4.29
Wt time wting room 3.85
Informed about delays wt. room
3.95
Keep child from boredom
4.12
Wt time exam room 3.96
Informed about delays exam rm
3.95
Interruptions exam room
4.41
Wt time after exam 3.99
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: No Show Rates
Patient No Show Rate All Clinic Average2006 vs. 2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Neurology GU ENT Surgery Dermatology
Clinic
% N
o S
ho
w R
ate
2006 Average
2007 Average
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: No Show Rates
• 2006 and 2007 show no all-clinic pattern for the entire year
• There is no one ‘good’ or ‘bad’ month for all clinics
Patient No Show Rates 2006
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Months
% N
o S
ho
w Neurology
GU
ENT
Surgery
Dermatology
Patient No Show Rates 2007
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Month
% N
o S
ho
w Neurology
GU
ENT
Surgery
Dermatology
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: No Show RatesNeurology No Show Rates 2006 vs. 2007
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Januar
y
Febru
ary
Mar
chApril
M
ayJu
neJu
ly
August
Septe
mber
October
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Month
% N
o S
ho
w
2007
2006
GU No Show Rate 2006 vs. 2007
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Januar
y
Febru
ary
Mar
chApril
M
ayJu
neJu
ly
August
Septe
mber
October
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Month
% N
o S
ho
w
2007
2006
• Some individual clinics do show a monthly pattern from 2006 to 2007
• KCH could anticipate ‘bad’ and ‘good’ months on a clinic by clinic basis
• However, averaging 40 – 50%, are they all ‘bad?’
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: General Observations
• We tracked clinician traffic in and out of exam room for unordinary occurrences (n = 46)
• Future analysis should discover the impact on wait and face times these interruptions cause
Reasons Clinicians Left Exam RoomMid-Visit
44%
30%
15%
7%
4%
Supplies Consult
Ask patient a question Need physician signature
Equipment
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Results: General Observations
• Observed patient charts could provide a visual cue for patient and process handoffs
• Charts often sat unattended on counter space
• Implemented a new chart flow process using Lean theories
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Exam Room 1
Waiting Room
Check-in
Treatment Room
Exam Room 2
Exam Room 4
Exam Room 3
Physician Room
Office Specialist
Registration
Counter Space
Counter
SpacePt Ready to be called
back
Current Chart Flow
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Exam Room 1
Waiting Room
Check-in
Treatment Room
Exam Room 2
Exam Room 4
Exam Room 3
Physician Room
Office Specialist
Registration
Counter Space
Pt Ready to be called
back
Nurses Discharges
Physicians
Discharges
To Be Seen By
Attending
To be seen by Physician
New Chart Flow
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
New Chart Flow Process
What it looks like today…
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Recommendations
• Team approach to capture the clinics’ momentum and ideas– Clinical Access Team
• Physicians’ input is critical to move forward
• Establish all-clinic goals regarding wait times and make this information transparent
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Recommendations
• Develop physician arrival policy– No longer does clinic start in the
morning…clinic starts at 8:30am
• Waiting room rounding
• Monitor new chart flow process and analyze its impact to total visit time
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Recommendations
• Increase patient education regarding no shows
• Define the clinics’ current scheduling process– Standardize desired patient volumes per
specialty
• Open Access scheduling– Potential to pilot test– Work off existing backlog
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Acknowledgements
• A special thanks to…
• Martin School Capstone Committee:– Dr. Sarah Wackerbarth– Dr. Scott Hankins– Dr. Joseph Fink
• KCH staff including:– Anne Long, Nurse Mgr KCH Clinics– All the KCH clinic & physician staff– Kyle Green, AVP Operations– Scott Stanton, Mgr Service Excellence– Nancy Wood, Mgr Management Engineering
• University of Louisville Industrial Engineering Student Team
Supported by the Children’s Hospital Foundation
Questions??
Recommended