Improving Staff Workflow in Urology Procedure Clinic Using the Model for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To maximize procedure volume and minimize workflow inefficiency in our urological procedure clinic, we hypothesized that for staff (nurses/medical assistants) and patient teams, team workflow duration (TWD) (the time required to complete team duties for a single appointment) could be reduced by 50% with a targeted workflow intervention developed using the Model for Improvement and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Workflow inefficiency leads to wasted time and workplace dissatisfaction, resulting in lost revenue due to low procedure volume and high staff turnover. METHODS: A baseline time study was performed to measure TWD for clinical teams, including the front desk, physician, staff, and patient teams. Implementation of previously identified interventions was also recorded. A workflow intervention was developed in which staff duties were split among two roles: staffer and triager. TWD and intervention implementation were remeasured over six Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Semistructured interviews were conducted as a balance measure to assess impact on staff workflow and wellness. RESULTS: Our workflow intervention resulted in a 44% and 42% reduction in staff and patient TWD, saving nearly 17 minutes per appointment on average. Thematic analysis revealed that time saved could be best used to protect lunch breaks and allow time to complete nonclinical duties such as patient calls, which had previously been performed after-hours. CONCLUSION: Introduction of staffer and triager roles to staff workflow increased clinic efficiency by reducing workflow and procedure appointment duration. Time saved was used to increase procedure volume while also supporting staff wellness.

A Patient Reported Approach to Identify Medical Errors and Improve Patient Safety in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Medical errors in the emergency department (ED) occur frequently. Yet, common adverse event detection methods, such as voluntary reporting, miss 90% of adverse events. Our objective was to demonstrate the use of patient-reported data in the ED to assess patient safety, including medical errors. METHODS: Analysis of patient-reported survey data collected over a 1-year period in a large, academic emergency department. All patients who provided a valid e-mail or cell phone number received a brief electronic survey within 24 hours of their ED encounter by e-mail or text message with Web link. Patients were asked about ED safety-related processes. RESULTS: From Aug 2012 to July 2013, we sent 52,693 surveys and received 7103 responses (e-mail response rate 25.8%), including 2836 free-text comments (44% of respondents). Approximately 242 (8.5%) of 2836 comments were classified as potential safety issues, including 12 adverse events, 40 near-misses, 23 errors with minimal risk of harm, and 167 general safety issues (eg, gaps in care transitions). Of the 40 near misses, 35 (75.0%) of 40 were preventable. Of the 52 adverse events or near misses, 5 (9.6%) were also identified via an existing patient occurrence reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: A patient-reported approach to assess ED-patient safety yields important, complementary, and potentially actionable safety information.

Outcomes of and resource consumption by high-cost patients in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Care of patients in an intensive care unit is among the most costly in hospitals. Little is known about high-cost patients within the intensive care unit or their outcomes of care. OBJECTIVES: To examine outcomes of and resource consumption by high-cost adult patients who received care in an intensive care unit at an academic medical center. METHODS: Data on patients admitted during the period January 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999, were analyzed retrospectively. An intensive care unit database, the hospital discharge data set, and a cost-accounting data set were used to determine the total intensive care unit cost for the hospitalization. Patients were then stratified into cost deciles. Hospital and intensive care unit outcomes for patients in the top decile were compared with those of patients in the other deciles. RESULTS: Cost data were available on 10,606 of the 11,244 patients who received care in an intensive care unit. Patients in the top decile accounted for 48.7% of all intensive care unit costs, and 67.6% of this group survived to discharge despite prolonged care. Patients transferred from an outside hospital were more likely to be in the top decile, have a longer stay in the intensive care unit, or die than were the other patients. CONCLUSIONS: A small group of patients accounts for a disproportionately higher amount of intensive care unit resources but has a relatively high survival rate. This cohort should be treated as an intact group that is not amenable to traditional cost-cutting measures.

Length of stay and costs for hospitalized hemodialysis patients: nephrologists versus internists.

The high cost of hospitalization for hemodialysis patients has become a major health care issue. To address this issue, length of hospital stay and costs for these patients were compared with services covered by nephrologists and services covered by internists. Hemodialysis patients (n = 161) were prospectively admitted 219 times on alternate days to services covered by nephrologists or by internists from July 1995 to March 1996. Admissions to nonmedical services and admissions for overnight observation were excluded. Length of stay, costs, and risk-adjusted predicted length of stay and costs, as well as the number of consultations were compared between services, using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Readmissions and deaths were compared using chi(2) tests. Mean length of stay for admissions to the nephrology service (n = 114) was 6.3 days compared with 8.1 days for admissions to internal medicine services (n = 105) (P = 0.017). The predicted length of stay was similar. Mean overall cost for admissions under the care of nephrologists was $7,925 versus $10,773 under the care of internists (P = 0.101). The internal medicine service averaged 1.5 consultations versus 0.5 consultations for the nephrology service (P = 0.001). The risk of readmission was 24% for nephrologists and 30% for internists (P = 0.328). Death within 90 days of discharge was 12% for the nephrology group and 22% for the internal medicine group (P = 0.07). The length of stay was significantly shorter for hemodialysis patients under the care of nephrologists compared with internists. The average total costs and risk of readmissions tended to be lower for nephrologists. If these results are corroborated, the care of hemodialysis patients by the nephrologist could diminish the overall expense of the ESRD program.