dashboards done right - an md anderson case study

Dashboards Done RightAn M. D. Anderson Case Study

Agenda

• The Buy-in

• The Dashboard

• The ResultsThe Results

• About the Speakers

2 An M. D. Anderson Case StudyDashboards Done Right

The Buy-in

First, we listened…

• In 2005, the Office of Physician Relations decided to reexamine our survey process

• We formulated a series of goals to • Overcome the challenges of the feedback system• Support the department’s objective of providing better access to feedback

• Deploying an online system created excitement and interest among p y g y ginternal stakeholders

• We organized our goals around their needsWe organized our goals around their needs • And gained considerable buy-in for the online system from the onset, and• Enhanced our department’s internal standing once the online system

launched


launched

…but we also needed to address their specific concerns

• Importance scores never change and don’t discriminate factors (i.e., everything is important)

• The physician’s actual experience isn’t recorded, so data aren’t actionable

• Timely distribution of reports to centers is difficult


…and addressed specific concerns in designing the survey process

• Importance scores never change and don’t discriminate factors (i.e., everything is important)• Importance scores will be adjusted on a quarterly basis using a statistical

procedure that calculates derived importance

• The physician’s actual experience isn’t recorded, so data aren’t actionable• In the online version of the survey, referring physicians are asked an

d d f ll ti di th i ( ) f di ti f ti topen-ended follow-up question regarding their area(s) of dissatisfaction to get to the specifics

• In the paper version, there is an opportunity to specify what M. D. Anderson can do to improve their satisfaction (rather than just generalAnderson can do to improve their satisfaction (rather than just general comments)

• Timely distribution of reports to centers is difficult


• Timely distribution of reports to centers is difficult• The online reporting site provides care centers with direct access to data;

each center can review monthly, quarterly and annual reports

Questionnaire design was aided by experience mapping

Diagnosis Consult Referral Treatment Follow-up

Symptoms

Suspicions

P th l /

Identify treatment options

Outline plan

Obtain Patient

Confirm diagnosis

Treatment

Patient maintenance plan

Pathology/ examination Discuss with

colleagues

Discuss with specialists

information

Discuss with patient

Insurance

plan

Progress reports

Community-

Patient satisfaction

Evaluate specialists, resources

Accessibility based lab or treatment

• Coordinate referral

• Direct patient

• Direct to physician

• “Business Office”

• Non-standard case

• Second opinion


Direct patientSecond opinion

Questionnaire – page 1

•Physicians are coded to tie into referral pattern data and profiles

S ti f ti l h d•Satisfaction scale was changed to be more discriminating

•Care Centers are specified

Questionnaire – page 2

•Separation of Care Center f M Dperformance versus M. D.

Anderson overall

•Key performance indicators –y ppreference and likelihood to recommend

•Actionable feedback

•Email database

Process Overview


The Dashboard

The tool provides us with more than just a satisfaction survey

• Not just a survey tool, but a relationship management tool

• Experience map – ties into categories and survey process

• Training recommended to generate internal awarenessTraining recommended…to generate internal awareness

• Releasing information to referring physicians (i.e., your feedback, our responses)responses)

• Internal benchmarking and peer pressure


…but there were some things we couldn’t do initially

• Develop a lengthy questionnaire to cover a myriad of issues and requests• Center-specific questions

• Expect all physicians to respond onlinep p y p

• Utilize the process to support immediate service recovery needs

• Integrate with CRM or Contact Management System

• Doctors who refer to multiple centers, and high vs. low volume referrers• Can’t ask a doctor about every patient they send


Getting the most from a vendor

• Selection• Research AND technology

• Openness in the procurement process• Budgetg• Terms• What’s in it for them

• Engaging in a strategic discussion to explore future possibilities

• Investing in the relationship• Investing in the relationship


Navigation

Query different reports by Month, Quarter or

Year

Segment data by 17 different care centersdifferent care centers


Overall Performance


Detailed Findings


Comments from dissatisfied physicians are linked directly to the data

Comparisons


Verbatim Responses


Response Rates


At-risk Responses


Export to MS Excel

Download reports in easy-to-use

MS Excel format


The Results

Increased value of the feedback

Metrics ResultsExtend circulation of reports t f tli t ff

Sessions in FY2007: 298 (average 25/month)to more frontline staff

Sessions in FY2008 (5 months): 160 (average 32/month)Enhance the quality of feedback

We improved the level of specificity in open ended questions. q

The online system immediately organizes comments to the area of the referring physician experience.

Reduce lag time between the Feedback even when provided via paper is entered into theReduce lag time between the referral experience andfeedback to care centers

Feedback, even when provided via paper, is entered into the system as it is received.

This has reduced the feedback time to less than two weeks. P id t it f O d d t di ifi tiProvide an opportunity for managers to take action

Open-ended comments regarding specific actions are no longer blinded. These respondents are also flagged “at-risk.”


Cost reductions

Metrics ResultsDecrease the cost of data

ll tiFixed budget for next three years to finance programming.

collectionThis budget was the same as our previous vendor.

Cost savings after third year will equal over 50%.Increase the frequency of reporting

Migrated reporting from quarterly to real-time

Improve response rates The online system has not enhanced response rates overall.

Email response rates have been higher than mail.Reduce the number of ad hoc report requests

Such requests to Physician Relations are nonexistent.

Th li t i f i i d t b dThe online system can run queries for examining data based on patient type or time period.


Providing more consultative services

• The new approach is more than a satisfaction measurement tool, stimulating requests for internal consultative support:

• Strategic Planning and Growth initiatives• Global Oncologygy• Brand Management• Enterprise Internet • Care Center specific planning• Care Center specific planning

• Process and Operations Improvement.• Baldridge Self-Assessment Processes• Customer Service and Access• Clinical Safety and Effectiveness Program


y g

Considerations/Additional issues

• Experience. If you are building this online system, we recommend finding a vendor that understands both marketing research and technology. This was more difficult than we first believed. Even the nationally recognized market research firms we considered did not y ghave the foresight to envision and implement this type of solution as they are more focused on patient satisfaction for JCAHO.

• Multimode survey process Organizations must be willing to use both paper and online• Multimode survey process. Organizations must be willing to use both paper and online surveys to maintain response levels. This might have short-term costs as you continue to build your database. Furthermore, some referring physicians might not ever be willing to complete surveys online. So the design should be flexible, to accommodate faxed and mailed surveysmailed surveys.

• Scale. The benefits of this online system are more evident to healthcare systems overall, and to hospitals with large referral volumes. However, all organizations can apply some of these principles (without investment in an online system).

• Data integration. There are limitations to what you can do in an online environment. Tying feedback to internal data is an issue we faced as HIPAA sets certain constraints on


Tying feedback to internal data is an issue we faced, as HIPAA sets certain constraints on the data that organizations can host online.

Things we are planning to do

• Encourage increased participation via the Web

• Continue efforts to further improve timeliness of feedback

• Develop physician reputation componentDevelop physician reputation component

• Integration with CRM application

• Translation of the survey tool (e.g., Spanish)

• Enhancements to reporting of data (e.g., views by country or satellite location)


The Speakers

Special Download Web Site

• Visit • http://client.gelbweb.com• U: Forum• P: MD Anderson

• For:• MD Anderson questionnaire• Marketing Health Services dashboard articleg• Oncology Watch dashboard article• Experience mapping materials


Lyle Green, MBA, FACHE, FHIMSS [email protected]

• Lyle Green is the Associate Vice President for Physician Relations at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, where he is

ibl f idi l d hi i th d i d i l t ti fresponsible for providing leadership in the design and implementation of physician relations, referral development, and physician access strategies.

• Mr. Green has a Master of Science Degree in Business Administration earned at Indiana University, and is a Board Certified Healthcare E ti d F ll i th A i C ll f H lthExecutive and Fellow in the American College of Healthcare Executives. Lyle is also a Certified Professional and Fellow in the Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society. His 28 years of healthcare experience includes clinical operations andyears of healthcare experience includes clinical, operations, and information technology responsibilities.


John McKeever, MBA [email protected]

• John McKeever is the Senior Vice President of Gelb Consulting Group, leading its efforts in healthcare marketing. He joined Gelb in 1998 after

di i ht i th h lth i d t d l i dspending eight years in the healthcare industry developing and launching new products for FHP/PacifiCare, Aetna, and Prudential.

• He now works alongside marketing executives at some of the nation’s leading healthcare organizations to support their use of customer insights to guide long-term growth strategies. He has published articles

i i b d t d k ti hon experience mapping, brand management, and marketing research. Since 2002, he has been an adjunct professor of marketing at the University of Houston C. T. Bauer College of Business.

• He holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Houston and a Bachelor of Business Administration from the University f N M i


of New Mexico.

dashboards done right - an md anderson case study

Documents