Upload
horace-montgomery
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1. Vision, Mission, Values
2. SC State Budget Update – Howell Clyborne, VP for Government and Community Relations
3. Campus President Update
4. System Goals and other Updates
5. Employee Opinion Survey Results
6. Wrap-Up, Questions, and Surveys
AGENDA
Our VisionTransform health care for the benefit of the people
and communities we serve.
Our MissionHeal compassionately. Teach innovatively. Improve
constantly.
Who We Are
GHS Values
Our core values are compassion, respect, caring, honesty, integrity, and trust. We live
our values through open communication, forward thinking, creativity, continually striving to
improve, responsiveness, a willingness to change, education, research, and clinical quality.
What We Stand For
7
South Carolina’s Economy
Budget Year SC State Budget Date
FY2008/2009 Budget $7.1 Billion July 2008
FY 2011/2012 Projected $5.9 Billion * Feb 2011
A $1.2 billion drop in South Carolina’s State Budget over three years.
Source: South Carolina Board of
Economic Advisors*Includes Trust Funds
SC Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) FY 11-12
8
SC House budget line for HHS:
$ 947,371,086SC Senate budget line for HHS:
$ 917,279,786
Specific Impact to Hospitals• Reducing growth rate from 10% to 8%• $125 million from a reduction in provider rates• Cuts will not be across the board.• Estimated cuts to hospitals 10% or higher!
Specific Impact to GHS: $20 Million
House Passed Their Version of Budget in March
We anticipate the Senate will pass their version in early May
The Budget will go to a Conference Committee
The Governor will have veto option
Where Are We In the Process?
9
Pillar Frameworkfor FY 2011
GHS Total Health PhilosophyThe GHS Total Health philosophy is central to our
approach to health care delivery, work force development and medical education. We value interdisciplinary
collaboration throughout a highly integrated delivery structure using patient-centered, standardized, and evidence-based
practices with reportable quality and financial outcomes.
GHS Pillars of Excellence
People Service Quality Growth Finance Academics
Measured by: 2011 Employee Opinion Survey – Commitment Index Score
Target: 4.29 (85th Percentile)
Result: 4.21 (72nd Percentile)
We work to transform health care.
Measured by: HCAHPS Overall Rating* (Percent 9’s and 10’s)
Press Ganey Overall Mean Scores**
Patients and families are the focus of everything we do.
FY 2011Targets
YTDResults
*Inpatient 74.0%78th %-tile
73.0%
**Ambulatory Surgery
93.783rd %-tile
93.4
**Emergency Services.
86.465th %-tile
83.4
3
We provide right care at the right time and in the right place.
2
Measured By Targets YTD Results
CMS All Care Measures
93.0%75th %-tile
93.4%
Patient Safety Culture Survey
67%75th %-tile
Not yet available.
Hand Hygiene
80%(Year Two)
89.3%
A great example of personal commitment to our culture of patient safety.
Spotlight on “Owner” Behavior
• Kathy Taylor, RN NICU• Identified a safety risk with
identical clear tubing for IV fluids and humidifying mist in incubators
• Raised the issue with her nurse manager, Jennifer Griffin and they contacted the manufacturer
• RESULT: blue tubing for humidifier/clear for IV fluids.
16
We develop our System to meet the needs of our communities.
Measured By
AnnualTarget
YTDTarget
YTD Results
Net Revenue
$1,363 M $670.0 M $678.0 M
New Patient Visits
146,195 72,604 68,534
1
1
Through March 2011
Measured by: Operating Margin
We responsibly direct our resources to support our mission.
AnnualTarget
YTDTarget
YTD Results
1.5%($21.0 M)
0.9% 1.7%
Through March 2011
Measured by: Implementation of strategic initiatives that advance our Academic Health System model.
Target:Achieve preliminary accreditation of USCSOM-Greenville during October, 2011.
YTD RESULT: LCME application submitted. Site visit scheduled for July.
We educate to transform health care.
FY 2011 Employee IncentiveMid-Year Projection
0.15* 0.25*0.30*0.30* ------
Linked to GHS Organizational Goals• All employees share these goals• Same calculation for all levels in the organization
Potential Employee Incentive:• Up to 1% of FY 2010 earnings; maximum of $1,000
FY 2011 Financial Trigger – No payout if payment would result in an operating margin of less than 1.5%.
*Weighting
0.0 0.0 0.20 0.25
Mid-Year Projection: 0.45 of a possible 1.0% of earningsDashed lines indicate scores that could still change as the fiscal year progresses.
How We Did It
• Commitment to being a highly integrated delivery system:– Specialty hospitals– Regional referral center– Physician practices (employed/affiliated)– Clinical staff
• Ranking Criteria – reputation, mortality, patient safety, and other (technology, patient services, presence of intensivists, palliative care…)
Heart & Heart Surgery
Hospital
U.S. News Score
Reputation
Mortality (below 1 is better)
Patient Safety Max=5
Discharges (3 years)
Nurse Staffing
Nurse Magnet
Technology (of 7)
Patient Svc. (of 8)
GMH(#45)
31.2 0.0 .62 5 5,907 2 No 4 6
Cleve-landClinic
(#1 )100.0 70.8 .47 3 12,433 2.2 Yes 7 7
Heart and Heart Surgery
Technology
Cardiac ICU Multi-slice spiral CT PET/CT scanner× Robotic surgery Single-photon-emission CT Transplant services*
*Hospitals can get 2 points for transplant services if they perform both tissue & heart transplants.
Patient Service
Cardiac Rehab Hospice× Pain management Palliative care Patient-controlled
analgesia Translators Wound-management
services
Related UMG physician group – Carolina Cardiology and Dept. of Surgery/Cardiothoracic Surgery
Greenville Pitches Infor GHS MedEx Academy
• June 29th at Flour Field• Come out and throw a “first
pitch” and maybe see some of the Drive players up close and personal
• Pitching Time: 4:00 -6:00 p.m.• Game Time: 7:00 p.m.• $1.00 from each game day
ticket purchased will be donated to GHS MedEx Academy
• Enjoy the game and support our MedEx program.
26
2828 28
Morehead’s National Healthcare Average
Updated annually and reflective of over 350 organizations, more than 800 healthcare facilities and over one million healthcare workers, Morehead’s National Healthcare Average is a benchmark designed to mirror the distribution (geography and sector) of the U.S. healthcare labor force.
Representative clients include:
Advocate Healthcare Carolinas HealthCare System Catholic Health East Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Cincinnati Children's Hospital Legacy Health System (OR) NYU Medical Center
Provena Health Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago Scottsdale Healthcare (AZ) Texas Children’s Hospital The Methodist Hospital System
(TX) Univ. of California Medical Centers Univ. of Chicago Medical Center
30
Employee Participation
80% 81% 79%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011
HistoricalResponse
Rate Trend
Administration Period: March 2011
Administration Mode: Online Survey
9,978Employees
Invited
7,842EmployeesResponded
7,8427,048 7,894
31
Domain Scores
4.314.29
4.21
4.164.18 4.17
4.14
4.07
4.15
4.104.07
4.05 4.05 4.04
3.97 3.96
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
Commitment Indicator Employee Manager Organization
GHS 2009 GHS 2010 GHS 2011 Natl HC Avg
32
Key Findings
Accomplishments
Workforce commitment continues to score significantly (+.05) above National Healthcare (NHC) Average
Strongest aspect of commitment is “I would recommend this organization to family and friends who need care.”
Over 60% (7 out of 11) of the facilities scored above the NHC Average
Highest performing item is “My work unit works well together.”
Most improved item is “Employees in my work unit help customers, clients, patients even when it's not part of their job.”
Opportunities
Employee respect and fair comp/benefits performed below NHC Average (both previously significantly above)
Number of Tier I work units decreases to 230 (39%) and Tier III increases to 123 (21%)
Lowest performing item is “I am satisfied with my benefits.”
Items with greatest decline is “My pay is fair compared to other healthcare employers in this area.”
Lack of employee involvement cited the most (+60%) as a reason to leave
33
Overall Workforce Commitment*
2011GreenvilleHospitalSystem
4.21
Performance Difference:
NationalHealthcare
Average
+.05
WorkforceCommitment
Percentile Ranking
72nd
2010GHS
-.08
2009GHS
-.10
Note – In this presentation GREEN/ RED notes a statistically significant difference.
•National Healthcare Average +/- .03
•Greenville Hospital System 2010 +/- .03
•Greenville Hospital System 2009 +/- .03*This is the GHS system measure
for our People Goal.
34
Difference from:
Workforce Commitment Item 2011 GHS
%Unfav
Natl HC Avg
2010 GHS
2009 GHS
40. I am proud to tell people I work for this organization. 4.36 2% +.01 -.07 -.08
46. I would recommend this organization to family and friends who need care.
4.42 3% +.09 -.02 +.03
54. I would like to be working at this organization three years from now.
4.40 4% +.14 -.07 -.08
59. I would stay with this organization if offered a similar job elsewhere for slightly higher pay.
3.75 15% +.04 -.12 -.12
63. I consider this organization the healthcare employer of choice in this area.
4.26 4% +.05 -.06 -.08
66. I would recommend this organization as a good place to work.
4.19 5% +.02 -.10 -.19
67. Overall, I am a satisfied employee. 4.09 7% +.02 -.11 -.19
Measuring Workforce Commitment
35
Workforce Commitment by Facility
91st% tile
72nd% tile
99th% tile
94th% tile
78th% tile
63rd% tile
94th% tile 90th
% tile
99th% tile
79th% tile
98th% tile
34th% tile
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
GHS Overall Corporate Services Greenville Memorial Greer Memorial Hillcrest Pickens
CI Score 2010CI Score 2011
36
Workforce Commitment by Facility (continued)
98th% tile 94th
% tile
99th% tile
93rd% tile
72nd% tile
72nd% tile
74th% tile
24th% tile 14th
% tile
1st% tile
95th% tile
84th% tile
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
North Greenville Patewood Roger C. Peace The Children’sHospital
The Cottages atBrushy Creek
University MedicalGroup
CI Score 2010CI Score 2011
37
Workforce Commitment by Position
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
+.29
Natl HC AvgCI = 4.16
Centerline is 2011 GHS Workforce Commitment Score 4.21
Senior Management (11)
Management (469)
Registered Nurse (1,979)
Clinical Professional (491)
Non-clinical Professional (253)
Clinical Technician (1,035)
Other Non-clinical Support (534)
Employed Physician (271)
Leadership Team (115)
Physician Resident (40)
Administrative/Fiscal (1,668)
Non-clinical Technician (194)
Other Clinical Support (782)
+.20
+.19
+.15
-.01
-.02
-.02
-.06
-.08
-.12
-.13
+.62
+.39
38
Workforce Commitment by Tenure
The GHS 2011 Average is 4.21
4.50
4.32
4.18
4.11 4.124.09
4.174.19
4.34
4.27
4.37
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
<90 days(208)
90 days-1 yr
(594)
1 yr(768)
2 yrs(893)
3 yrs(772)
4 yrs(403)
5-9 yrs(1,706)
10-14 yrs(1,062)
15-19 yrs(390)
20-24 yrs(425)
25+ yrs(621)
Natl HC AvgCI = 4.16
39
Workforce Commitment by Shift
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
Centerline is 2011 GHS Workforce Commitment Score 4.21
Day shift (6,427)
Evening shift (509)
Night shift (906)Natl HC AvgCI = 4.16
+.03
-.11
-.14
40
Workforce Commitment by Gender
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Centerline is 2011 GHS Workforce Commitment Score 4.21
Female (6,467)
+.03Male (1,375)
Natl HC AvgCI = 4.16
-.01
41
Workforce Commitment by Race
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
Centerline is 2011 GHS Workforce Commitment Score 4.21
Black or African American (1,203)
White (6,320)
Hispanic or Latino (169)
Asian (107)
Two or more races (26)
American Indian or AK Native (12)
+.14Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (5)
Natl HC AvgCI = 4.16
+.11
.00
-.01
-.04
-.08
-.36
42
Workforce Commitment by Age
The GHS 2011 Average is 4.21
4.34
4.14 4.144.21 4.25
4.364.31
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
<20 (17) 20-29(1,110)
30-39(1,780)
40-49(2,092)
50-59(2,089)
60-69 (698) 70+ (56)
Natl HC AvgCI = 4.16
43
Difference from:
KEY DRIVERS of Workforce Commitment (in order of influence)
Domain2011GHS
%Unfav
.
Nat’l HC Avg
2010GHS
60. I feel like I belong in this organization. EMP 4.03 7% -.04 -.07
53. I selected this organization as a place to work because its values reflect my own.
EMP 4.08 4% +.05 -.03
27. I like the work I do EMP 4.57 1% +.07 -.03
22. This organization provides high-quality care and service. ORG 4.35 2% +.04 -.01
65. I have confidence in senior management’s leadership. ORG 3.93 9% +.11 -.10
49. Patient safety is a priority in this organization. ORG 4.46 2% -.01 -.02
62. The environment at this organization makes employees in my work unit want to go above and beyond what’s expected of them.
EMP 3.68 16% +.11 -.07
Key Driver Analysis
44
Difference from:
Model Domain 2011 GHS
Natl HC Avg
2010 GHS
2009 GHS
Organization Domain 3.97 +.01 -.07 -.08
Manager Domain 4.07 +.02 -.03 -.08
Employee Domain 4.14 +.07 -.03 -.04
Measuring Domain Performance
45
Diff. from:
HIGHEST PERFORMING ITEMS Compared to the National Healthcare Average
Domain
2011 GHS
% Unfa
v
Natl HC Avg
2010 GHS
1. My work unit works well together. EMP 4.26 6% +.15 .00
51. The person I report to follows up on my concerns/questions from rounding.
MGR 4.04 11% +.15 -.03
11. This organization contributes to the community. ORG 4.40 1% +.13 -.03
24. Physicians and staff work well together. ORG 4.03 6% +.13 +.01
19. This organization cares about employee safety. ORG 4.32 4% +.12 -.03
Highest Performing Items
46
Diff. from:
LOWEST PERFORMING ITEMS Compared to the National Healthcare Average
Domain
2011 GHS
% Unfa
v
Natl HC Avg
2010 GHS
21. I am satisfied with my benefits. ORG 3.34 26% -.33 -.19
36. I am satisfied with my job security. ORG 3.83 12% -.07 -.02
16. I am involved in decisions that affect my work. MGR 3.64 18% -.06 -.04
60. I feel like I belong in this organization. EMP 4.03 7% -.04 -.07
13. Different levels of this organization communicate effectively with each other.
ORG 3.42 22% -.03 -.02
50. I can report patient safety mistakes without fear of punishment. ORG 4.15 7% -.03 -.02
2. This organization cares about its customers. ORG 4.29 3% -.03 -.03
Lowest Performing Items
47
Diff. from:
MOST IMPROVEMENT Compared to Greenville Hospital System 2010
Domain
2011 GHS
% Unfav
2010 GHS
Natl HC Avg
10. Employees in my work unit help customers/clients/patients even when it's not part of their job.
EMP 4.34 3% +.01 +.08
7. Employees’ actions support this organization’s mission and values. EMP 4.11 4% +.01 +.06
24. Physicians and staff work well together. ORG 4.03 6% +.01 +.13
14. There is a climate of trust within my work unit. EMP 3.73 18% +.01 +.01
Most Improved Items
48
Diff. from:
GREATEST DECLINE Compared to Greenville Hospital System 2010
Domain 2011 GHS
% Unfav
2010 GHS
Natl HC Avg
29. My pay is fair compared to other healthcare employers in this area.
ORG 3.46 22% -.31 +.06
21. I am satisfied with my benefits. ORG 3.34 26% -.19 -.33
31. My work unit is adequately staffed. ORG 3.41 27% -.17 +.02
30. The employee incentive (bonus) encourages me to do a better job.
ORG 3.65 18% -.14 N/A
26. Information from this survey will be used to make improvements.
ORG 3.78 12% -.14 +.09
Items with Greatest Decline
49
Open-ended Comment Items
4,904respondents
providedfeedback
What do you like best about working for this organization?
63% ofrespondents
providedfeedback
Percent of total comments by theme:
26
18
17
10
10
8
The people
Quality leadership
Outstanding patient care provided here
Teamwork
Opportunities for learning and career advancement
My job
50
Open-ended Comment Items
5,200respondents
providedfeedback
66% ofrespondents
providedfeedback
Percent of total comments by theme:
Please provide one suggestion on how to make this organization a better place to work.
29
18
11
9
8
7
Improve pay and benefits
Address staffing issues
Promote leadership development
Open lines of communication
Update the facility, equipment, and technology
Respect and listen to employees
52
Morehead’s Tier Classifications
High Survey Scores: minimal action planning activities
Average Survey Scores: action planning activities typically required
Low Survey Scores: significant action planning activities
Typical Expectations: Maintain Tier 1 status, assist Tier 3 and Tier 2 managers with action planning best practices
Typical Expectations: Achieve Tier 1 status through action plan development/implementation
Typical Expectations: Achieve Tier 2 status through action plan development/implementation and support by senior leadership and HR/OD
53
Greenville Health SystemTier Results
18% 21%
36%40%
46%
39%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1
2010 2011Tier 1 = Power Items Score™ ≥ 4.15Tier 2 = Power Items Score™ ≥ 3.80 and < 4.15Tier 3 = Power Items Score™ < 3.80
235 WU
HistoricalTier Movement
107 WU 123 WU 217 WU 276 WU 230 WU
2006/7 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Percentile Ranking
62nd
99th
GHS Employee Survey Results
Five-Year Trend
55
16th
91st
72nd
Press Ganey
Survey Question2010 AnnualEmp Survey
May 2010
Aug 2010
Nov 2010
Feb 2011
2011 AnnualEmp Survey
Confidence in Senior Management’s leadership 4.03 402 4.20 4.12 4.21 3.93
Different levels communicate effectively 3.44 3.55 3.54 3.36 3.59 3.42
Proud to tell people I work for this organization 4.43 4.39 4.47 4.39 4.43 4.36
Recommend GHS to family and friends 4.44 4.41 4.56 4.45 --- 4.42
Would work at GHS three years from now 4.47 4.44 4.61 4.44 4.46 4.40
Stay if offered job elsewhere for slightly higher pay 3.87 4.08 4.29 4.05 4.04 3.75
Healthcare employer of choice in this area 4.32 4.38 4.56 4.40 4.44 4.26
Recommend GHS as a good place to work 4.29 4.35 4.46 4.34 4.37 4.19
Overall, I am a satisfied employee 4.20 4.26 4.37 4.22 4.28 4.09
Town Hall Surveys Offer a Snapshot Between Annual Surveys
56
Town Hall Survey Results Compared to Selected Questions from the Annual Employee Opinion Survey
Higher scores among Town Hall Attendees.
A Theory and a Quick Small Group Discussion
57
Our TheoryEmployees who attend Town Hall Meetings are generally more engaged and have a better understanding of what’s
happening at GHS.
A Theory and a Quick Small Group Discussion
58
Our TheoryEmployees who attend Town Hall Meetings are generally more engaged and have a better understanding of what’s
happening at GHS.
Discussion
Does this theory make sense to you?
How could you help generate more participation in Town Hall Meetings?
Please record you thoughts on the Town Hall Survey Question 4.3 (additional comments)
• Departmental Meetings– Zero-In on your work unit’s results– Develop department-specific action plans
• System-Level Action Planning– Detailed review of system results by Senior
Leadership– System-level action plan will be developed to include
planned and new initiatives
Next Steps
59
62Please complete BOTH sides of survey formAnswers to many of your questions are in the Town Hall Q&A handout.
Please Complete the Survey