Process redesign for time-based emergency admission targets

Purpose: Hospitals have used process redesign to increase the efficiency of the emergency department (ED) to cope with increasing demand. While there are published studies suggesting a positive outcome, recent reviews have reported that it is difficult to conclude that these approaches are effective as a result of substandard research methodology. The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of hospital staff on the impact of a process redesign initiative on quality of care. Design/methodology/approach: A retrospective qualitative case study examining a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) initiative in a large metropolitan hospital from 2009 to 2010. Non-probability sampling identified interview subjects who, through their participation in the redesign initiative, had a detailed understanding of the implementation and outcomes of the initiative. Between April 2012 and January 2013 26 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed with thematic content analysis. Findings: There were four important findings. First, when asked to comment on the impact of the LSS implementation, without prompting the staff spoke of quality of care. Second, there was little agreement among the participants as to whether the project had been successful. Third, despite the recognition of the need for a coordinated effort across the hospital to improve ED access, the redesign process was not successful in reducing existing divides among clinicians and among managers and clinicians. Finally, staff expressed tension between production processes to move patients more quickly and their duty of care to their patients as individuals. Originality/value: One of the first studies to explore the impact of process redesign through in-depth interviews with participating staff, this study adds further evidence that organisation implementing process redesign must ensure the supporting management practices are in place

Factors associated with length of stay and the risk of readmission in an acute psychiatric inpatient facility: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE: This study was to investigate factors influencing the length of stay and predictors for the risk of readmission at an acute psychiatric inpatient unit. METHOD: Two comparative studies were embedded in a retrospective cross-sectional clinical file audit. A randomly selected 226 episodes of admissions including 178 patients during a twelve-month period were reviewed. A total of 286 variables were collected and analysed. A case control study was employed in the study of length of stay. A retrospective cohort study was used to investigate the predictors for the risk of readmission. RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses showed that 10 variables were associated with length of stay. Seclusion during the index admission, accommodation problems and living in an area lacking community services predicted longer stay. During the follow-up period 82 patients (46%) were readmitted. Cox regression analyses showed 9 variables were related to the risk of readmission. Six of these variables increased the risk of readmission, including history of previous frequent admission, risk to others at the time of the index admission and alcohol intoxication. More active and assertive treatment in the community post-discharge decreased the risk of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Length of stay is multifactorially determined. Behavioural manifestations of illness and lack of social support structures predicted prolonged length of stay. Good clinical practice did not necessarily translate to a shorter length of stay. Therefore, length of stay is predictable, but not readily modifiable within the clinical domain. Good clinical practice within the community following discharge likely reduces the risk of readmission. Quality of inpatient care does not influence the risk of readmission, which therefore raises a question about the validity of using the rate of readmission as an outcome measure of psychiatric inpatient care

Efficacy of a multifaceted podiatry intervention to improve balance and prevent falls in older people: study protocol for a randomised trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Falls in older people are a major public health problem, with at least one in three people aged over 65 years falling each year. There is increasing evidence that foot problems and inappropriate footwear increase the risk of falls, however no studies have been undertaken to determine whether modifying these risk factors decreases the risk of falling. This article describes the design of a randomised trial to evaluate the efficacy of a multifaceted podiatry intervention to reduce foot pain, improve balance, and reduce falls in older people.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Three hundred community-dwelling men and women aged 65 years and over with current foot pain and an increased risk of falling will be randomly allocated to a control or intervention group. The "usual cae" control group will receive routine podiatry (i.e. nail care and callus debridement). The intervention group will receive usual care plus a multifaceted podiatry intervention consisting of: (i) prefabricated insoles customised to accommodate plantar lesions; (ii) footwear advice and assistance with the purchase of new footwear if current footwear is inappropriate; (iii) a home-based exercise program to strengthen foot and ankle muscles; and (iv) a falls prevention education booklet. Primary outcome measures will be the number of fallers, number of multiple fallers and the falls rate recorded by a falls diary over a 12 month period. Secondary outcome measures assessed six months after baseline will include the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12 (SF-12), the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index, the Falls Efficacy Scale International, and a series of balance and functional tests. Data will be analysed using the intention to treat principle.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study is the first randomised trial to evaluate the efficacy of podiatry in improving balance and preventing falls. The trial has been pragmatically designed to ensure that the findings can be generalised to clinical practice. If found to be effective, the multifaceted podiatry intervention will be a unique addition to common falls prevention strategies already in use.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12608000065392</p