If Roy Schoenberg, co-founder and chief executive of American Well, has his way, patients will no longer have to wait a month to see a doctor, wait all day for a doctor to return their call, or leave work and drive a long distance for a routine appointment. Instead, patients will log on to their computers and find themselves face-to-face with physicians over Webcam.
Policymakers have focused primarily on increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to increase physicians' participation in Medicaid, although physicians often complain of payment delays and other administrative burdens associated with Medicaid. This study from the Center for Studying Health System Change examines how Medicaid reimbursement time affects physicians' willingness to accept Medicaid patients. Delays in reimbursement can offset the effects of high Medicaid fees, thereby lowering participation to levels that are closer to those in states with relatively low rates. Increasing these rates may be insufficient to increase physicians' participation unless accompanied by reductions in administrative burden, according to the study's authors.
Pauline Chen, MD, said she was inspired by the election of Barack Obama to discus racial barriers in healthcare in this New York Times column. Obama's success didn't eliminate racial barriers in healthcare, Chen says, but perhaps it will provide a catalyst for addressing race issues on a more consistent basis.
I do some of my best thinking while pedaling my bike through the streets of Chicago or the countryside of North Carolina (I confess I'm a Lance Armstrong-wannabe). I was riding along the shore of Lake Michigan recently, pondering the state of healthcare in our nation, when I had an epiphany regarding the concept of "quality" in healthcare.
I believe we've got it all wrong as to what constitutes "healthcare quality." Our mistake is in thinking that quality is a unicycle—a singularly focused discipline that measures and seeks to improve the caliber of our clinical and technical processes, thus assuring superior patient outcomes. And while these clinically oriented processes and investments are centrally important to improved patient care delivery, this singular focus compromises the real depth of what determines "quality"—particularly as it relates to patients, their families, and caregivers.
The "ah-hah!" during my ride is that quality is, in fact, a bicycle. It has two wheels, both of which are essential to a successful ride—or more appropriately, a successful patient experience. One wheel is devoted to clinical excellence, while the other is devoted to service excellence. To focus solely on clinical excellence at the expense of service excellence robs the patient and the healthcare enterprise of its soul, and to engage in service excellence at the expense of clinical excellence robs the healthcare enterprise of its purpose and the patient of their improved health.
Relevance to my hospital
OK, the point's been made. Just how does this concept apply to my hospital?
Here are some very real and tangible examples from a recent client engagement. I was retained by a four-hospital regional health system in the Midwest to conduct what I call a "customer commitment audit" designed to measure the organization's ability and resolve to deliver a compelling patient experience—particularly from a service excellence standpoint. The capstone diagnostic of this audit is to routinely assess a hospital's emergency room—in my experience, it's the most efficient and powerful way to "stress test" what any given healthcare organization stands for, both in the clinical and service dimensions of quality.
Across these four hospitals, my average wait time from portal to portal was just under three hours. However, my total elapsed time spent with the ED physician on average—just over two minutes. Following these assessments, I met with the president of the ED Group servicing these hospitals and shared the headlines of my encounters with "his?" emergency departments (set off in quotes because the physicians claimed they merely worked there—a noteworthy subject for a future article). When he heard about the extended length of the wait juxtaposed to the brevity of the professional encounter, he immediately responded with the immortal call of the healthcare wild: "But the physicians provided you with good quality care, didn't they?"
And that's the point—and the problem! As a professional field, we continue to hide behind the unicycle of clinical excellence and somehow justify the deplorable service provided to patients because we provided excellence along the clinical domain. The end somehow justifies the means.
My response to this ED physician leader: "Truth be known, it was excellent clinical care, but quite frankly, doctor, it wasn't worth the wait!" Once he got over his shock at my candor, he demonstrated tremendous leadership and asked to hear more about my experiences, some of which are highlighted below:
Having a registration clerk stare at me and do nothing because I wouldn't ring the "red bell" designed to announce my arrival.
Having another triage nurse ignore me upon arrival for several minutes (while legitimately being distracted by a much sicker patient) and then suddenly look my way and extort: "Well, find a seat; it's going to be a couple of hours!"
Being admitted to a storage closet with a gurney—in a brand new hospital.
Interacting with countless staff members who never introduced themselves, nor have their names badges flipped so I could see who they were.
Being provided with four pages of "discharge instructions" in eight-point font, but not having anyone explain how to leave the ED so I wouldn't get lost.
And I could go on and on and on. But anyone who's worked in a hospital is acutely aware of similar types of experiences. And each of you reading this list could quickly add five more vignettes equally as graphic from your own institution. And we in healthcare justify this deplorable level of service because, "Well, we provided good quality care, didn't we?"
Clinical excellence is assumed
Now the more calloused (or more cavalier) reader may respond, "Why all the fuss about service? It simply doesn't matter how nice we are to the patient—we're still going to get paid, and they're still going to come to our hospital." And truth be known, that's absolutely right—for the time being. But there are two principle reasons why more attention needs to be paid to this other wheel—one is more universal, and the other is clearly financial.
A colleague who recently had an extended interaction with several hospitals put a sharp point to this universal issue. As she explained it, the healthcare encounter is all about instilling confidence in the patient interaction—and that requires emotional intelligence, not clinical intelligence. Lay people simply don't have the requisite skills or criteria to assess clinical expertise. But they can certainly judge whether the caregiver "cares" about them and whether by their actions and their compassion they instill a sense of confidence. And she noted, without that confidence factor, the patient enters a very negative spiral, and begins to wonder: "Will I ever get out of here, and more importantly, will I get out of here alive?"
And what is it that patients remember following a hospital stay? It's not the clinical stuff—research consistently documents that patients assume they will receive excellent clinical care. However, what patients do remember, and what they share with friends and family members, is how they were treated (i.e. how well the staff responded to their needs, how well their questions were answered, to what extent did the staff demonstrate compassion, etc.). This is the "soft" stuff that doesn't matter in healthcare—or so we're led to believe.
And if that doesn't spark a response, then the emergence of pay for performance should. Starting in the fall of 2010, as much as 4% to 5% of your Medicare revenue will be at stake for both your clinical performance as well as your service performance, the latter being measured by your HCAHPS scores. There are, in fact, 10 factors that will be used to judge hospitals, but the key metric is to determine patient loyalty is:
Percent of patients who reported yes, they would definitely recommend the hospital.
This question is a powerful predictor to assess the patient's overall experience.
So now let's return to our symbolic bicycle. Have you decided yet which wheel is "clinical" and which is "service?" A colleague recently asked two simple questions to clarify this issue: "Which is the wheel the patient sees? And which is the wheel that determines the 'direction' the patient experience will ultimately take?" It's very clear to me which wheel is which.
Let's explore this further. The back wheel is "out of sight," it is far more technical and infinitely more complicated, in large part because of the gears, the shifting mechanism, the rear axle design, etc. And doesn't this begin to mirror the clinical side of healthcare? But if my front wheel is not properly aligned, doesn't have sufficient air or inadvertently gets turned the wrong way, it doesn't matter how sophisticated the gearing mechanism is on my bike, I'm certain to have a bad experience. And yes, I ultimately need both wheels to have a quality riding experience—just as a patient needs peak performance on both the clinical and service dimensions to have a quality patient outcome.
So what to do?
There's quite a lot that healthcare leaders and clinical staff members can do to immediately address this redefined concept of quality as a symbiotic bicycle. Contact me at the e-mail address below and I'll send a dozen steps and initiatives that will bring balance and symmetry to the quality quotient in your hospital—literally overnight. They are categorized along three dimensions designed to materially enhance the patients' experience: demonstrate commitment, refresh your perspective, and apply reward and recognition.
So now we've come full circle.
It all starts and ends with the patient. But how we see them is strongly influenced by the lens through which we process the world. I fully endorse the need to keep relentless pressure on maintaining the clinical caliber of our healthcare institutions. But I feel equally as strongly that the pursuit of excellence in "quality" demands a bilateral focus on both clinical and service performance. Anything short of that is either a very bumpy ride or an unnecessarily sterile experience for the patient.
So grab a bike helmet, take an objective ride through your own institution, and see how you would capitalize on this analogy.
Morley Robbins is a principal with Health Planning Source, a healthcare strategy consulting firm in Durham, NC. He can be reached at morleyrobbins@healthplanningsource.com
For information on how you can contribute to HealthLeaders Media online, please read our Editorial Guidelines.
Although some private practices might think of business strategy in immediate terms, it is important to think about the long-term goals, or governance, of the organization. Not doing so could prove disastrous to a practice's future business, experts say. One of the first things a private practice should do is understand the difference between governance and management.
"What you are asking governance to do is to set a strategy that will factor in to the next 10 years, and it will also shape your organization," says Michael Dugan, vice president of Health Directions, LLC, a Chicago-based healthcare strategy and operations consulting firm. "The management of that is the actual follow-through. I guess you can say governance is what you want the organization to be, and management is how you want the organization to get there."
Governance, in other words, is providing direction toward the goals or mission of the business, whereas management is implementing that direction.
The first, and perhaps most important, aspect of establishing governance is to establish a mission, a vision, and a culture for the organization. To do so, the organization's governance needs to be responsive to and aware of the resources necessary to achieve these goals. For example, it is important to specifically outline what type of treatments the office will offer, what type of patients it will see, and what short- and long-term goals it hopes to achieve.
Another important factor is identifying which roles officials will play in planning the governance of the organization, which can be difficult. "Physicians who are more financially adept, for example, should head up the finance committee, do the contracting for the group, and serve on the committee for next year's budget," Dugan says.
Sometimes, the practice's physicians might strictly provide leadership and direction and ensure that the resources are there for the organization. In addition, physicians might want to stay away from the management or daily operation of the practice and delegate that responsibility to management.
Some offices do not take the time to develop a strategy in relation to governance or to regularly review its business operations. When mistakes are made in regard to governance, Dugan suggests starting at the top and making an honest assessment of previous decision-making so the organization can learn from its mistakes. The organization needs to sit down and determine what to spend money on and what it needs to grow, as well as the areas in which it wants to grow, he says. Not taking the time to properly plan could be disastrous.
This article was adapted from one that ran in the November issue ofThe Doctor's Office, a HealthLeaders Media publication.
Everyone thinks patient safety is important. Everyone. No, I haven't spoken with every healthcare professional in the United States, but I'm going to go ahead and make that leap. I've never interviewed a hospital executive who said, "You know, we hope our patients are fairly safe when they come here, but what's really important to our organization is supply chain efficiency." I've never heard a physician remark, "You know, I think all this drama over MRSA will eventually just blow over."
Senior leaders, middle managers, doctors, nurses, technicians, frontline staff, housekeepers—they'll all tell you patient safety is critical. Organizations implement advanced technology and send staffers to classes and devise complex systems and craft grand mission statements all in the name of making patients safer.
And yet...
Well, you know the rest. Crippling infections, patient falls, wrong-site surgeries—it's a familiar list to all of you. Even as healthcare professes its dedication to patient safety, a lot of "preventable" occurrences keep right on occurring. Sure, plenty of organizations have made admirable strides in protecting patients. And exhausted caregivers inevitably make mistakes. Technology breaks down. Money is tight.
I know all that. But what is really at the root of the industry's patient safety failings?
There's no easy answer to that one, of course, but I've seen some interesting research lately that points to a problem of perception. A report from Press Ganey Associates shows a major disconnect in how administrators, managers, caregivers, and frontline staff perceive their organization's safety culture. Based on nearly 40,000 responses nationwide, the study found that senior leaders have a much higher regard for their organization's safety culture than many frontline staffers. And administrators tend to view their culture as less punitive than do caregivers, who often fear punishment if errors are reported, the study says.
"No kidding," I can almost hear the physicians and nurses among you muttering. But I wonder if the average hospital executive genuinely understands the extent of the disconnect that can build between the C-suite and the trenches when it comes to patient safety? As the report notes, such differences can stem from a variety of sources—different groups of people are privy to different information, communication breaks down, basic human nature prompts varying responses to the same set of circumstances.
But whatever the origins of the disconnect, the point is that even the most thorough, earnest, technologically supported safety programs can be undermined and solutions delayed if key groups are not aligned.
Perhaps even more significant to me is the gap in perceptions of blame. It doesn't matter what processes you implement or which technologies you utilize—if technicians are afraid mistakes will be held against them or nurses believe reporting errors will be considered "tattling" rather than a collaborative attempt to address an organizational challenge, the system starts breaking down. Senior leaders often refer to their organization as having a "blame-free culture." That's how your executive team feels, sure. But if you asked your nursing staff, would they agree?
It doesn't have to be this way. Oh, people from different backgrounds who are educated in different disciplines and are charged with performing different tasks will inevitably have varying perceptions to some degree. But when it comes to basic communication and information access, there's no excuse for failing to close the gap. How can an organization fix a problem if the components of that organization don't collectively recognize the problem in the first place?
Jay Moore is managing editor for HealthLeaders magazine. He can be reached at jmoore@healthleadersmedia.com.
Note: You can sign up to receive HealthLeaders Media QualityLeaders, a free weekly e-newsletter that reports on the top quality issues facing healthcare leaders.