11/26/2012
1
1
Customized ER Operational Strategiesfor Low Acuity Patients
Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA, FACEPJody Crane, MD, MBA, FACEP
Kevin Nolan, MStat, MA
Session A18/B18This presenter has nothing to
disclose
Participants will be able to:1.Describe strategies based on ER volume that can
be implemented in your ER to efficiently treat low acuity patient (i.e. Levels 4, 5 and some 3s).
2. Identify specific models and elements of design that could and should be applied in your ER.
The presenters have nothing to disclose
2
Session Objectives
11/26/2012
2
Session Topics
1.Overview and setting context
2.Flow models for low acuity patients
3.Key elements of design for low acuity patients
3
Why are we doing this?
4
11/26/2012
3
Timeliness of care has a strong correlation to patient satisfaction (1,2) with wait time to be treated by a physician having the most powerful association with satisfaction. (3)
1. Bursch B, Beezy J, Shaw R. Emergency department satisfaction:what matters most? Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:586‐591.
2. Thompson DA, Yarnold PR, Williams DR, et al. Effects of actual waiting time, perceived waiting time, information delivery, and expressive quality on patient satisfaction in the emergencydepartment . Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28:657‐665.
3. Boudreaux ED, D’Autremont S, Wood K, et al. Predictors of emergency department patient satisfaction: stability over 17months.Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:51‐58.
©Kirk B. Jensen, MD, MBA, FACEP
5
Quality and Safety
0.90
2.74
4.16
012345
0‐30minutes
30‐60minutes
> 60minutes
Time to Physician
Average Claims / 25k patient visits
Source: Studer Group and CEP
6
11/26/2012
4
Effect of Working on “Low Acuity” Patients
ESI 2 ESI 3 ESI 4 ESI 5X
Error bars represent 95% Confidence Intervals for Mean LOS
3.0
2.75
2.50
2.25
LO
S (
in H
ours
)
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SCENARIO NUMBER
Why Designs for Low Acuity Patients Fail
• Unclear mission
• Entry criteria poorly defined
• Lack of dedicated (and committed) staff
• Capacity and demand mismatches
– Staff, space, supplies..
– Missing the ramp up
• Multiple handoffs
• Too sick patients
• Standardization failures
8
11/26/2012
5
“Mindless conformity and the thoughtful setting of standards should never be confused. What solid Standard Operating Procedures do is nip common problems in the bud, so that staff can focus instead on solving uncommon problems.”
Bill Marriott (of the Marriott hotel chain) as quoted by
Mark Graban in Lean Hospitals
9
Standard Work
© Kirk B. Jensen, MD, MBA, FACEP
Standard Work
10
11/26/2012
6
The Importance of Standard WorkStandard Work/Documentation – Roles, Evidence‐Based Practices
• In low acuity patients, this may be more about process documentation than evidence‐based practices, making sure everyone understands their roles and work sequence
• Pain protocols and frequent flier pathways may be implemented and adhered to here
• Certain evidence‐based practices such as antibiotic practices and influenza pathways certainly have a role
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 201111
• Gold standard for LOS is 60 minutes or less, but hard to achieve.
• A median LOS for all low acuity patients (4,5, some 3’s) < 75min should be considered excellent
• The average is somewhere in the 90 minute to 120 minute range.
• As far as ideal throughput time, controlling for quality and safety, the shorter the better from the patient's perspective.
Design Targets for Low Acuity Patients
12
11/26/2012
7
The EDBA Annual ED Data Survey
2011 Results for 830 EDs Hi CPT Under Admit % Transfer EMS EMS Median MLOS Treat MLOS LBTC Door EKG
seeing 29.6m pts Acuity age 18 % Arrival Arrival Admit LOS & Release Admit to Doc per 100
Over 100K 66% 20.2% 21.8% 0.9% 23% 42% 214 182 356 2.3% 31 30
80 to 100K 71% 18.4% 20.9% 1.1% 21% 44% 218 187 362 3.4% 38 25
60 to 80K 66% 18.2% 20.8% 1.2% 19% 44% 205 174 337 2.8% 35 31
40 to 60K 65% 19.5% 19.1% 1.4% 18% 43% 186 156 303 2.3% 33 28
20 to 40K 63% 20.2% 17.1% 1.8% 16% 41% 160 134 261 1.7% 28 26
Under 20K 55% 23.7% 12.7% 2.7% 12% 39% 139 115 227 1.4% 23 20
Pediatric 48% 99.0% 11.4% 0.6% 8% 33% 147 132 270 1.4% 31 4
Adult, Specialty 71% 2.7% 25.5% 1.1% 23% 48% 240 204 346 3.2% 40 34
Urgent Care,Freestanding 41% 23.6% 4.2% 3.4% 7% 31% 100 97 240 1.0% 22 12
2011 Data from the Emergency Department Benchmarking Association (EDBA)
13
General Principles
• The front door and your front end processes drive flow.
• Triage is a process, not a place. • Get the patient and the doctor together
as quickly and efficiently as possible.• “Fast track” is a verb, not a noun.• Keep your vertical patients vertical and
in motion.• For horizontal patients, real estate
matters. For vertical patients, speed matters.
• We want to be fast at fast things and slow at slow things.
Kirk Jensen/Thom Mayer/ Jody Crane
14
11/26/2012
8
15
Front End Patient Flow: A Portfolio of Options
• Advanced Triage Orders/Treatment Protocols
• Fast‐Tracking Low‐Acuity Patients:
– Super‐Track (ESI 5’s + simple 4’s)
– Fast‐Track (ESI 5’s, 4’s, and simple 3’s)
• Clinician in Triage – Rapid Medical Evaluation (RME)
– Midlevel Provider in Triage
– MD in Triage
– Intake Team/Team Triage (multi‐disciplinary assessment and treatment team)
16
11/26/2012
9
Front End Patient Flow: A Portfolio of Options
• Advanced Triage Orders/Treatment Protocols
• Fast‐Tracking Low‐Acuity Patients:
– Super‐Track (ESI 5’s + simple 4’s)
– Fast‐Track (ESI 5’s, 4’s, and simple 3’s)
• Clinician in Triage – Rapid Medical Evaluation (RME)
– Midlevel Provider in Triage
– MD in Triage
– Intake Team/Team Triage (multi‐disciplinary assessment and treatment team)
17
A Portfolio of Options available to be set up as patient volume and demand either requires it or can justify it . The front‐end flow tactics(s) are selectively and scientifically deployed at certain hours of the day and days of the week based upon your demand‐ capacity modeling of incoming patient flow.
Models for Low Acuity Patients
18
11/26/2012
10
Super Track
A Fast Track located in or near triage for the purpose of promptly treating patients who require very low resource utilization
Treatment Room 1
Treatment Room 2
Procedure Chair Results
Waiting
1 Doc/MLP1 RN/LPN
1 Tech
Entrance/Exit
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011
Super Track Volume Bands
© 2011, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D.
11/26/2012
11
Rapid Medical Evaluation (RME)
• Midlevel Provider in Triage
• MD in Triage
• Intake Team (multi‐disciplinary assessment
and treatment team)
21
1. Keep area open, visible to all
2. Keep patients upright3. Keep all equipment
/manpower mobile4. Each station has to be
user friendly
One STOP shopping
© Kirk B. Jensen, MD, MBA, FACEP 22
11/26/2012
12
Intake System
Team of providers that promptly assess, treat, and discharge primarily level 3 patients
2 Providers (Doc/MLP),2 RN/LPN,1 Paramedic2 Scribes, 1PSR/HUC
Quick Look Quick Reg
Quick Triage
TreatmentArea
5 Rooms
Results Waiting
Intake Volume Bands
© 2011, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D. 24
11/26/2012
13
General Operational Strategies for Low Acuity Patients by Volume
20,000 • No triage, Immediate bedding, bedside registration for all• No Segmentation – Clear signals to identify low acuity patients• Results waiting
40,000• Quick Look Triage to segment, Quick/Bedside Registration for all• For ERs with low acuity/low admit: Super Track (9a‐11p) with 1‐2
MLP with committed resources for lab/rad• For ERs with high acuity/high admit: Intake Team (9a‐11p) with
1 doc, 1 MLP with committed resources for lab/rad• Results waiting
60,000 • Quick Look Triage to segment, Quick/Bedside Registration for all• Super Track (8a‐1a), MD/MLP Intake Team (9a‐11p)• Results waiting
25© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011
From Models and Strategies to DESIGN:Key Elements of a Design for Low Acuity ER Patients
1. Profile of patient demand by hour of the day2. Average service times required to match demand 3. System for patient segmentation 4. Distinct processes for low acuity patients 5. Right staffing mix6. Contingencies for large fluctuations in demand or capacity
Matching Your Demand:26© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011
11/26/2012
14
• You should know your arrivals by hour of day
• Busy and slow days
• Broken down by – Chief complaint
– ESI Level
– Ancillary Utilization
1. Profile of low acuity patient demand by hour of the day
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 201127
2. Average Low Acuity Service Capacity (bed, doc, nurse) required to match demand
This can be expressed in 1) patients per hour or 2) in terms of how much time you have and how much time it takes.
1. If 3 low acuity patients are coming through per hour, and your service rate is 2.5 patients per hour, then you have some work to do.
2. Similarly, if 3 low acuity patients are coming through per hour, then you have 20 minutes per patient. If it takes you 24 minutes, you must improve your process
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 201128
11/26/2012
15
Scientific Management: Matching Capacity to Demand‐Arrivals vs. Staffing (MD and
MLP coverage)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Demand vs. CapacityMinorCare
Modeled Demand Average Demand Capacity
0
1
2
3
4
0:0
0
1:0
0
2:0
0
3:0
0
4:0
0
5:0
0
6:0
0
7:0
0
8:0
0
9:0
0
10:
00
11:
00
12:
00
13:
00
14:
00
15:
00
16:
00
17:
00
18:
00
19:
00
20:
00
21:
00
22:
00
23:
00
Demand vs. Revised CapacityMinorCare - Heavy Days
Average Demand Modeled Demand Capacity
29
Matching Capacity to Demand‐Arrivals vs. StaffingEfficiency and Effectiveness
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nursing Demand
Efficient AllocationExample: 96 Nursing Hours
Demand Efficient Allocation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nursing Demand
Inefficient AllocationExample: 96 Nursing Hours
Demand Inefficient Allocation
30
11/26/2012
16
Getting the patient to the right place, at the right time, with the right treatment
Patient Enters
Immediate bedding in
back
Streamlined Care
ST/FT/TT/RW
Sick
Patient Sorted
Not Sick
Doctor To see Now
31
3. System for Patient Segmentation
3. System for Patient Segmentation
• ESI – Based– 4’s, 5’s, and criteria
based level 3’s
– Age criteria
– CC criteria
• Other Triage Scale– CTAS
– Manchester
– ATS (Australia)
• Historical Resource Utilization
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011 32
11/26/2012
17
Triage
Brief RN Assessment:ESI Evaluation / Evaluation of Acuity
High AcuityPathway
ESI Levels 1 + 2
Moderate AcuityPathway
Most ESI Level 3sLow Acuity
PathwayESI Levels 5, 4,
+ some 3s
33
3. System for Patient Segmentation
NOTE: If your processes are the same, segmentation will actually hurt your overall system performance due to anti‐pooling
© 2012, Crane, Noon, Leitner
15‐20%Super Track
ESI 4‐5
20‐30%Main EDESI 1‐3
50‐60%Intake/PODs
ESI 3
34
Emergency Streaming: an exampleRN
3. System for Patient Segmentation/ distinct area in ED to treat specific patient
11/26/2012
18
Standardize! Who is Appropriate for Low Acuity?
35© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D.
4. Distinct Processes for Low Acuity Patients
All processes should be designed with “Flow” in mind. Consider:
‐Medications‐Radiology and lab services‐Point of use supplies‐Point of care testing‐Visual signals‐Results waiting
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011 36
11/26/2012
19
4. Distinct Processes: Medications that can be given in intake
Standardize!
– Stick with PO meds primarily
– PO pain meds OK
– Nebs OK
– IM injections OK, but stick with non‐narcotics
– No IV’s unless the patient is heading towards a treatment area, no IVF
© 2011, Jody Crane, MD, MBA 37
4. Distinct Processes: Radiology and Lab Services for the Front End and Triage
• Lab and radiology should have easy, reliable access to patients. They should be located near triage and fast tracking area if possible to promote patient flow.
• Phlebotomy should be available at triage
• Transporters are underutilized, underappreciated, and should be employed
38© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D.
11/26/2012
20
Super Track ‐ Ancillaries
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 201139
4. Distinct Processes: Point of Use Supplies
• Should have a system in place such that supplies are readily available
• Commonly used supplies should be close to the point of use, quickly accessible –b lood tubes, medications fluids, CT supplies(contrast) pelvic exam equipment
• Can be set-up and charged outside of the patient care window
• Can be determined by chief complaints of patients targeted for FT
40© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D.
11/26/2012
21
• I‐Stat ‐ 3 min– (H/H, Chem 8, CKMB,Trop I, BNP, PT/INR, ABG, Lactate )
Chempaq
POC CBC with diff!
Biosite – 10 min
Myoglobin, Ck‐MB, Trop I, BNP, D‐dimer
Clinitech ‐ 2 min
U/A, UPT
Piccolo – 12 min
BMP, CMP,Electrolytes
Rapid strep, mono, influenza…
41© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA
4. Distinct Processes: Point of Care Testing
© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA 42
Signals indicating the patient status in the room, signals on the floor to indicate the path patient should take for lab or x‐ray
4. Distinct Processes: Visual Signals
11/26/2012
22
Visual SignalsThe goal of visual signals/visual controls is to make performance, waste, problems, and abnormal conditions readily apparent to employees and managers
43
4. Distinct Processes: Results Waiting
• Should be available close to triage
• Used to buffer long Rad/lab TAT without consuming bed resources
• Need an “eye” on this area
• Should be designed with customer service as #1 thought
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011 44
11/26/2012
23
Standardize!• Who is eligible for Results Waiting? There are many variation depending on how elaborate the RW area is– Ambulatory
– Should need very few interventions
– Very low risk
– No etoh, homeless, etc
• Can get more elaborate in the right settings:– IV narcotics after observation period
– IV abx after observation period
© 2011, Jody Crane, MD, MBA45
Results Waiting
• Can be internal or external– External – usually back out to the ED waiting room
• Advantages – limitless capacity, already triage nurse eye on area
• Disadvantages – patients can wander, poor visibility, patient satisfaction
– Internal• Advantages – patients feel they are in process, dedicated supervision
• Disadvantages – space limited
• Should be entertaining and comfortable
© 2009, Jody Crane, MD, MBA 46
11/26/2012
24
If an Airport can do it…
© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D. 47
If an Airplane can do it…
© 2012, Jody Crane, MD, MBA, Charles E. Noon, Ph.D. 48
Picture compliments of Jim Lennon, Arch
11/26/2012
25
• For most low acuity patient populations, midlevel staffing is preferred
– Low cost
– Right skill mix
– Little risk of rework or physician intervention
• Exceptions would be
– If your docs have to see every midlevel patient prior to discharge
– If you do not have sufficient volume of low acuity patients to justify a segmented stream
– Volume and acuity justify the full deployment of a physician upfront
5. The right staffing mix/skill mix/training
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 201149
6. Contingencies for large fluctuations in demand or capacity
• For low acuity areas, you want high utilization; therefore, there is not much room for surge.
• EDs should be designed with progressively more capacity as the acuity level increases
– As such, low acuity should be able to “spill over” into mid acuity areas and mid acuity to high as a general rule
Low Acuity
Mid Acuity
High Acuity
© Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA and Jody Crane, MD, MBA, 2011 50
11/26/2012
26
In Summary:Improving Flow for Low Acuity ER Patients
• Select models and strategies based on volume/demand
• Focus on Design 1. Profile of patient demand by hour of the day2. Average service times required to match demand 3. System for patient segmentation 4. Distinct process for low acuity patients 5. Right staffing mix6. Contingencies for large fluctuations in demand or capacity
• Standardize!
51
Questions to Consider on Your Way Home…
• If you could do three things to either improve your Emergency Department, or improve your ability to improve your Emergency Department, what would they be…
• How can your ED, your Team and your Hospital best work together to …
• What are your next action steps…
52
11/26/2012
27
Resources, References, and Benchmarking
54
11/26/2012
28
Improving Patient Flow In the Emergency Department
55
Kirk Jensen/Jody Crane
Hardwiring FlowSystems and Processes for Seamless Patient Care
Thom Mayer, MD, FACEP, FAAP Kirk Jensen, MD, MBA, FACEP
Why patient flow helps organizations maximize the “Three Es”: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and ExecutionHow to implement a proven methodology for improving patient flowWhy it’s important to engage physicians in the flow process (and how to do so)How to apply the principles of better patient flow to emergency departments, inpatient experiences, and surgical processes
56
11/26/2012
29
The Definitive Guide to Emergency Department Operational Improvement
57
Jody Crane MD MBA (Author), Chuck Noon PHD (Author)
Leadership for Smooth Patient Flow:Improved Outcomes, Improved Service, Improved Bottom Line
Kirk B. Jensen, MD, FACEP Thom A. Mayer, MD, FACEP, FAAP Shari J. Welch, MD, FACEP Carol Haraden, PhD, FACEP
The heart of the book focuses on the practical information andleadership techniques you can use to foster change and remove thebarriers to smooth patient flow.
You will learn how to: Break down departmental silos and build amultidisciplinary patient flow team Use metrics and benchmarking datato evaluate your organization and set goals Create and implement areward system to initiate and sustain good patient flow behaviorsImprove patient flow through the emergency department—the mainpoint of entry into your organization The book also explores whathealthcare institutions can learn from other service organizationsincluding Disney, Ritz-Carlton, and Starbucks. It discusses how toadapt their successful demand management and customer servicetechniques to the healthcare environment.
“This book marks a milestone in the ability to explain and exploreflow as a central, improvable property of healthcare systems. Theauthors are masters of both theory and application, and theyspeak from real experiences bravely met.”
Donald M. Berwick, MDPresident and CEO
Institute for Healthcare Improvement (from the foreword)
ACHE + Institute for Healthcare Improvement
58
11/26/2012
30
The Hospital Executive’s Guide to Emergency Department Management
Kirk B. Jensen, MD, FACEPDaniel G. Kirkpatrick, MHA, FACHE
Introduction: Why the ED Matters 1. A Design for Operational Excellence 2. Leadership3. Fielding Your Best Team 4. Improving Patient Flow in the Emergency Department5. Customer Service: Ensuring Patient Satisfaction 6. ED Change Initiatives: Getting Things Done7. ED Change initiatives‐Managing Change8. Patient Safety and Risk Reduction9. The Role and Necessity of the Dashboard10. How the ED Is a Business11. Billing, Coding, and Collections12. Physician Compensation Models‐‐Productivity‐Based
Systems
HcPro ISBN: 978‐1‐60146‐742‐3
59
The Improvement Guide and Rapid-Cycle Testing
Langley GL, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP.
The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition).
San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers; 2009.
60
11/26/2012
31
References
• Bazarian J. J., and S. M. Schneider, et al. Do Admitted Patients Held in the Emergency Department Impair Throughput of Treat and Release Patients? Acad Emerg Med. 1996; 3(12): 1113‐1118.
• Building the Clockwork ED: Best Practices for Eliminating Bottlenecks and Delays in the ED. HWorks. An Advisory Board Company. Washington D.C. 2000.
• Christensen, C, J Grossman, and J Hwang. The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care. 2009.
• Full Capacity Protocol. www.viccellio.com/overcrowding.htm
• Goldratt, E. The Goal. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press, 1986.
• Holland, L., L. Smith, et al. 2005. “Reducing Laboratory Turnaround Time Outliers Can Reduce Emergency Department Patient Length of Stay.” Am J Clin Pathol 125 (5): 672‐674.
• Husk, G., and D. Waxman. 2004. “Using Data from Hospital Information Systems to Improve Emergency Department Care.” SAEM 11(11): 1237-1244.
• Jensen, Kirk. “Expert Consult: Interview with Kirk Jensen.” ED Overcrowding Solutions Premier Issue.Overcrowdingsolutions.com. 2011.
• Kelley, M.A. “The Hospitalist: A New Medical Specialty.” Ann Intern Med. 1999; 130:373-375.
• Optimizing Patient Flow: Moving Patients Smoothly Through Acute Care Settings. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2003. (Available on www.IHI.org).
• Wilson, M., and Nguyen, K. Bursting at the Seams: Improving Patient Flow to Help America’s Emergency Departments. Urgent Matters White Paper. September, 2004.
61
Benchmarking Resources
Where to find dataYour neighbors
• Call and/or visit
ACEP• http://www.acep.org
Premier• www.premier.com
VHA• www.vha.com
ED Benchmarking Alliance• www.edbenchmarking.org
UHC• www.uhc.org
Be sure to compare hospitals with similar acuity and similar volume…
62