Working for a health care organization that is trying to transform itself, one thing they are trying to implement is an Integrated Plan of Care (IPoC) for new in-patients to the hospital. This practice has been implemented a the Mayo Clinics as well a number of other hospitals across North America.
One important feature of their implementation is using the idea of "Pull" to draw in the other health care providers in a timely, efficient, and effective basis to both make the outcome of the hospitalization likely, but also to control the costs (such as reducing the length of stay).
Unfortunately, most hospitals still function from a "Push" perspective. They model, analyze, and predict what resources are most likely to be needed and budget for them on this basis. In the end there is usually too few resource most of the time. There is little, if any, flexibility to ensure the timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the service delivery.
What do you do if you implement an Integrated Plan of Care and there are no professional staff to meet the needs identified? Is the organization really ready to move from a Push perspective to a Pull one?
PTWonk
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Transformation
I recently read an article titled “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture: The Situational Strength Perspective” by Masood et al (2006). Masood and his co-authors provide a framework for understanding the interrelationship between leadership (transformative or non-transformative), culture (hierarchical, market, clan-based, or adhocracy), and context (weak versus strong situations).
In applying this to healthcare organizations that I have worked for in the past and currently, such organizations are typically hierarchical in structure, lead by non-transformative leaders, and present a strong situational context which, on the whole, impedes transforming changes to occur within the organization.
(Note, I do not mean to imply that some leaders do not have transformation qualities, but simply that those qualities are not allowed to be expressed within the organization except in a tight, controlled manner reflective of the hierarchical structure).
In order for transformational change to be most successful, leaders need to not only have transformational qualities (good visioning, rhetorical, and impression management skills, and ability to use these skills to develop strong emotional bonds with followers) but they also need to work within a situational context that allows these qualities to flourish. Similarly, clan and adhocracy cultures are more adept at recognizing opportunities for change, accept ambiguity, and have the energy and motivation to elevate issues to a higher level and produce not just action but results.
To implement “transformation” within a hierarchical organization we often asking leaders and front-line staff to “buck-the-system” which goes against the grain of everything they may have been told (or experienced) the organization values and rewards. This contradiction is simply too much for many leaders and most staff and the transformation effort is destined to fail.
Lastly, implementing transformation is not about achieving the deliverables in a project plan. True transformation starts with leadership and culture and leads to production (i.e., the manner in which work is performed). Transformation, once in place, is ongoing, never ending.
It’s the people – not the processes and policies and products – that highlight a transformative organization. If you are talking about transforming patient care within your organization, ask yourself if you have focused on the people first.
In applying this to healthcare organizations that I have worked for in the past and currently, such organizations are typically hierarchical in structure, lead by non-transformative leaders, and present a strong situational context which, on the whole, impedes transforming changes to occur within the organization.
(Note, I do not mean to imply that some leaders do not have transformation qualities, but simply that those qualities are not allowed to be expressed within the organization except in a tight, controlled manner reflective of the hierarchical structure).
In order for transformational change to be most successful, leaders need to not only have transformational qualities (good visioning, rhetorical, and impression management skills, and ability to use these skills to develop strong emotional bonds with followers) but they also need to work within a situational context that allows these qualities to flourish. Similarly, clan and adhocracy cultures are more adept at recognizing opportunities for change, accept ambiguity, and have the energy and motivation to elevate issues to a higher level and produce not just action but results.
To implement “transformation” within a hierarchical organization we often asking leaders and front-line staff to “buck-the-system” which goes against the grain of everything they may have been told (or experienced) the organization values and rewards. This contradiction is simply too much for many leaders and most staff and the transformation effort is destined to fail.
Lastly, implementing transformation is not about achieving the deliverables in a project plan. True transformation starts with leadership and culture and leads to production (i.e., the manner in which work is performed). Transformation, once in place, is ongoing, never ending.
It’s the people – not the processes and policies and products – that highlight a transformative organization. If you are talking about transforming patient care within your organization, ask yourself if you have focused on the people first.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
An Issue with Caseload and Workload Guidelines
A Fundamental Issue of Caseload Guidelines
An issue that I have come to accept is that caseload guidelines based on an economic model of “supply and demand” are fundamentally flawed. The reason for this is that an economic model is all about the efficient supply and consumption of resources under the constraint of scarcity.
Within the current context of health care scarcity leads to rationing of supply
which results in neither efficient nor effective health service delivery. In other words, the resulting services are not ideal and, in fact, we often struggle to provide optimal services within this context. Conversely, workload and caseload guidelines are often based on an ideal situation.
Unless new caseload guidelines can fundamentally connect effective workload management to positive patient outcomes and cost containment, guidelines will be justifiably ignored by publicly funded health care administrators where available budget is the predominant factor that is considered.
Hollis (1994) reported the fundamental question in caseload management is “…how many people are needed to provide a quality service?” Yet, the question of defining, measuring, and analyzing the quality has largely remained not investigated.
Alternatively, if there was some guarantee that the funding (supply of clinical positions) would be maintained to meet the needs of patients or a guarantee that we would adjust the number of practicing clinicians, then we have achieved something.
The reality is that if all the patients are not seen without delay and there is no constraint on the resources, therapists are always forced to prioritize patients or interventions or both, and the outcomes that would achieved if supply equaled resources are not achieved.
Scarcity of resources creates a number of concerns in healthcare. Clinicians will feel pressured by multiple sources to meet demands for which there are not enough resources. There will be either too many patients or too many needs to be addressed. Out of a sense of professionalism and dedication, clinicians will forgo breaks, lunch periods, and perform unpaid overtime to meet the needs of patients. Organizations may make decisions to ignore certain patient populations rather than spreading resources too thin.
Clinicians will be forced to prioritize patients and interventions, making decisions to delay interventions, create wait lists, or provide sub-optimal services based on what we may see as the most beneficial interventions for the patient, such as providing sub-optimal duration, intensity or frequency of treatment.
Scarcity does not always create the efficiencies that one might expect. As caseload increase, clinicians become less effective. High caseloads have an inherent degree of “waste” that cannot be avoided, making clinicians less efficient.
Our response to this scarcity creates risks. Patients may suffer by not receiving interventions, receiving interventions, but in a delayed manner, or not receiving sufficient intervention to meet treatment goals. Patients are at a higher risk of adverse events such as falls. Patients are less compliant with interventions because staff or stressed for time to communicate effectively. Clinicians are stressed morally and ethically, leading to inefficiencies and ineffective interventions. The organization is at risk of lawsuits due to its inability to support effective and safe practices. And, the organization is at risk of actually creating a more costly health care system by making misguided decisions around staffing levels and the workload expectations of clinicians.
An issue that I have come to accept is that caseload guidelines based on an economic model of “supply and demand” are fundamentally flawed. The reason for this is that an economic model is all about the efficient supply and consumption of resources under the constraint of scarcity.
Within the current context of health care scarcity leads to rationing of supply
which results in neither efficient nor effective health service delivery. In other words, the resulting services are not ideal and, in fact, we often struggle to provide optimal services within this context. Conversely, workload and caseload guidelines are often based on an ideal situation.
Unless new caseload guidelines can fundamentally connect effective workload management to positive patient outcomes and cost containment, guidelines will be justifiably ignored by publicly funded health care administrators where available budget is the predominant factor that is considered.
Hollis (1994) reported the fundamental question in caseload management is “…how many people are needed to provide a quality service?” Yet, the question of defining, measuring, and analyzing the quality has largely remained not investigated.
Alternatively, if there was some guarantee that the funding (supply of clinical positions) would be maintained to meet the needs of patients or a guarantee that we would adjust the number of practicing clinicians, then we have achieved something.
The reality is that if all the patients are not seen without delay and there is no constraint on the resources, therapists are always forced to prioritize patients or interventions or both, and the outcomes that would achieved if supply equaled resources are not achieved.
Scarcity of resources creates a number of concerns in healthcare. Clinicians will feel pressured by multiple sources to meet demands for which there are not enough resources. There will be either too many patients or too many needs to be addressed. Out of a sense of professionalism and dedication, clinicians will forgo breaks, lunch periods, and perform unpaid overtime to meet the needs of patients. Organizations may make decisions to ignore certain patient populations rather than spreading resources too thin.
Clinicians will be forced to prioritize patients and interventions, making decisions to delay interventions, create wait lists, or provide sub-optimal services based on what we may see as the most beneficial interventions for the patient, such as providing sub-optimal duration, intensity or frequency of treatment.
Scarcity does not always create the efficiencies that one might expect. As caseload increase, clinicians become less effective. High caseloads have an inherent degree of “waste” that cannot be avoided, making clinicians less efficient.
Our response to this scarcity creates risks. Patients may suffer by not receiving interventions, receiving interventions, but in a delayed manner, or not receiving sufficient intervention to meet treatment goals. Patients are at a higher risk of adverse events such as falls. Patients are less compliant with interventions because staff or stressed for time to communicate effectively. Clinicians are stressed morally and ethically, leading to inefficiencies and ineffective interventions. The organization is at risk of lawsuits due to its inability to support effective and safe practices. And, the organization is at risk of actually creating a more costly health care system by making misguided decisions around staffing levels and the workload expectations of clinicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)