Improving wait times in primary care using the Dartmouth microsystem improvement curriculum

Losing the wait: improving patient cycle time in primary care

Inefficient clinic systems leading to prolonged wait times at primary care clinics are a source of frustration for patients, physicians, staff and administration. Measuring and shortening cycle time has the potential to improve patient experience, staff satisfaction and patient access by moving more patients through in a shorter cycle time. Limited studies have demonstrated that improvements can be made to cycle time and may result in improved patient satisfaction. Most of these studies have focused their efforts on improving efficiency at the front end of the cycle. Our aim was to improve cycle time for the whole visit to less than 60 min within 1 year by engaging our team in brainstorming solutions, presenting regular measurements to our team for review and holding regular meetings to plan rapid improvement cycles. Over the course of 1 year (2017), we were able to reduce cycle time by 12% from 71 to 65 min and to improve patient satisfaction with care. Despite the reduction in cycle time, we maintained high satisfaction scores from patients who felt that the doctor spent enough time with them. We learnt the value of engaging our team, frequent measurement for reporting, adequate staffing at the beginning of clinic, and the value of MA staff acting in a flow coordinator role. We have not only maintained this improvement but also made further small gains over the subsequent 2 years, and by April 2019, our cycle time is at 60 min, despite a marked increase in patient volume. Additional work on the time after the patient is roomed and waiting for a doctor, and further analysis of the physician workflow would be important next steps to drive further improvement.

Effectiveness of a patient navigator on patient satisfaction in adult patients in an ambulatory care setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

One approach to overcoming healthcare system barriers and facilitating timely access to quality care and patient satisfaction is with a patient navigator. A patient navigator is a trained person who individually assists patients, families and caregivers navigate the healthcare system barriers efficiently and effectively at any point along the care continuum, improving patient care at all levels of an organization.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of a patient navigator on patient satisfaction in adult patients 18 years and older in ambulatory care settings.

INCLUSION CRITERIA TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

This review considered studies that involved adults of any ethnicity, race or gender, aged 18 years or older, regardless of diagnoses, stage of illness, whether the illness is acute or chronic or previous treatment, who had been receiving care in an ambulatory care setting.

TYPES OF INTERVENTION(S)/PHENOMENA OF INTEREST

This review considered studies on the use of a patient navigator as an additional intervention to usual care for promoting patient satisfaction for adult patients in an ambulatory care setting. Usual care without a patient navigator was considered as a comparator.

TYPES OF STUDIES

This review considered experimental and observational studies.

OUTCOMES

The outcome considered was patient satisfaction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The literature search included published and unpublished studies in the English Language from 1990 through July 2015. A search of PubMed, CINAHL, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Academic Search Premier, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Social Work Abstracts and Web of Science was conducted. A search for gray literature and electronic hand searching of relevant journals was also performed.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

Two reviewers independently evaluated the included studies for methodological quality utilizing standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA EXTRACTION

Standardized data extraction tools from Joanna Briggs Institute were used by two independent reviewers for data extraction.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A statistical meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity between the included studies. Results are presented in a narrative form.

RESULTS

Four studies were included in this review, two were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one was a quasi-experimental pre-post-test design study and one was a cohort study. The four studies showed that a patient navigator had clinical benefit for patient satisfaction, care coordination and patient access to timely healthcare services. One RCT reported a mean satisfaction score of 4.3 for navigated patients and 2.9 for non-navigated patients; P < 0.001. A second RCT showed an odds ratio 1.29; 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.82 for navigated versus non-navigated patients. The quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study showed navigated patient satisfaction with a mean = 11.45 (standard deviation [SD], 3.69) in comparison with the non-navigated patient (mean, 14.95; SD, 1.69) (F = 11.85; P = 0.000). The cohort study demonstrated a mean satisfaction score of 90.7 for navigated patients and 85.5 for non-navigated patients; P = 0.03. The four studies showed no clinically significant results; however, the patient navigator role may promote relationships among the healthcare team, reducing barriers for patient-centered care and enhanced patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of a patient navigator on patient satisfaction. In the four studies selected for inclusion, a patient navigator had a positive effect on patient satisfaction, although none of the studies demonstrated statistical significance with a patient navigator on patient satisfaction. The effect of a patient navigator remains questionable with differences in perceptions on the best individual for the role and the expected role perception and performance. A standardized approach to the role of the patient navigator may maximize health outcomes and positively affect the quality of life for all patients.

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics

Background

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders’ reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research.

Methods

STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project’s advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC.

Results

Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools.

Conclusion

Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065. Registered October 31, 2013.

Reducing barriers to timely MR imaging scheduling

Scheduling a magnetic resonance (MR) imaging study at the authors' large health system in 2011 required considerable preparation before an appointment time was given to a patient. Difficulties in promptly scheduling appointments resulted from the varying time required for examinations, depending on the requested protocol, availability of appropriate MR imaging equipment, examination timing, prior insurance authorization verification, and proper patient screening. These factors contributed to a backlog of patients to schedule that regularly exceeded 300. A multidisciplinary process-improvement team was assembled to improve the turnaround time for scheduling an outpatient MR imaging examination (the interval between the time when the order was received and the time when the patient was informed about the MR imaging appointment). Process improvements targeted by the team included protocol turnaround time, schedule standardization, schedule intervals, examination timing, service standards, and scheduling redesign. Using lean methods and multiple plan-do-check-act cycles, the time to schedule an outpatient MR imaging examination improved from 117 hours to 33 hours, a 72% reduction, during the 9-month study period in 2011-2012. The number of patients in the scheduling queue was reduced by 90%. Overall MR imaging examinations within the specific patient population studied increased from 773 patient studies during the first month of intervention to 1444 studies the following month and averaged over 1279 patient studies per month throughout the study.