The Emergency Department
improvement team began developing their current state process map and found out
very early on that imagining their process and getting it down on paper was not
an easy task. There were disagreements for
sure on how the actual process looks, but the most difficult thing was deciding
how to map out the five different scenarios that existed within their ED as
follows:
Scenario 1: Patient enters the ED and is moved directly
to an ED bed.
Scenario 2: Patient is triaged (Triage 1), moves to the
patient waiting room, patient is triaged (Triage 2), and finally is moved to an
ED bed.
Scenario 3: Patient is triaged (Triage 1), then
immediately triaged again (Triage 2), then moves to a waiting room and then is
moved to an ED bed.
Scenario 4: Patient is triaged (Triage 1), then moves to
the waiting room, then is triaged again (Triage 2), then moves back to the
waiting room, then finally is moved to an ED bed.
Scenario 5: Patient is triaged (Triage 1), then immediately
to Triage 2, then immediately to the ED bed.
The team was struggling on
how best to map these individual processes and could not see an easy way to do
so. I asked them a series of questions
as follows:
- Which scenario is the fastest? The assured me that Scenario 1 was much faster than any of the others.
- Which scenario is the slowest? They told me that Scenario 4 was by far and away the slowest.
- Which scenario is most commonly used for patients and they told me that Scenario 4 was used for about 80% of the patients.
The team asked me what they
should do and I simply told them that since Scenario 4 applied to 80 % of the
patients that they should focus their efforts on that one since it represents
the largest opportunity to improve both the cycle time and patient satisfaction
metrics. This was a classic case of the
infamous Pareto Principle meaning that 80% of their improvement will come from
20% of their scenarios (i.e. 1 of 5 scenarios).
I also explained that they
should also review what things aren’t done in Scenario 1 that make it much
faster than any of the others. This
could in fact become their Ideal State and help them create a future state that
meets all of their performance objectives.
The team has completed their
first draft of the current state process map and will complete it
tomorrow. They will also be completing
their value stream analysis by categorizing each step as value-added (color-coded
as Green), non-value-added (color-coded as Red) and non-value-added but
necessary (color-coded as Yellow). When
this is completed the team will then create their ideal and future state maps.
One problem the team
rightfully pointed out was that it is relatively easy to “speed-up” the front
end of the process by reducing the time it takes to get the patient to the ED
Exam Room, but getting the doctor to the exam sooner is going to be difficult. We then created an Interference Diagram (ID)
to better understand what gets in the way of reducing the time it takes for the
doctor to see the patient. Figure 1 is
the ID the team created.
Figure 1
The team then began looking
for potential solutions for each of the interferences listed in the ID which I
will report on in my next posting.
Bob Sproull
No comments:
Post a Comment