Session 6C - MHS Vision

523 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
523
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • For this slide, we looked at all the different event types. This graph shows relative to the number of reported events, which practices and policies for certain event types could improve based on harm events. Just like medical services where some are more complicated and riskier, the same applies here where some event types have a higher percentage of harm because they are more complicated and riskier.We are looking at the specific event type and how many events were reported to the PSAC (denominator), and the number of events that resulted in harm to the patient (numerator). This proportion is calculated and shown.The red line indicates the average DoD harm percentage for all event types (it is 3.2%) for FY2010. What is not shown prominently are the high frequency events (laboratory, EMR, radiology) with low harm percentages. (Near Miss events accounted for 63% of all reported events.3.2% of reported events classified as harm events. Only 0.16% of the total resulted in permanent harm or death.)Treatment Device – Unintentional Removal example: Inadvertantly removing a pcc- or IV- line.
  • Session 6C - MHS Vision

    1. 1. The Case for Change –People are suffering 18 yo college freshman with first episode rectal bleeding, anemia Diagnosis: • Evaluated by PA at Bethesda, referred immediately for colonoscopy at Walter Reed. • Team of Gastroenterologists reviews biopsy – • Dx: Possible Crohn’s vs. Ulcerative Colitis – Medications initiated • No education provided --- Patient is terrified. Initiation of Care: • Enrolled at NNMC but, since in college, “you should change your enrollment site” • 20 phone calls by patient and patient’s mother, unable to transfer enrollment site • Patient’s mother flies to Chicago to change enrollment and find PCM • Initial visit with PCM to get GI referral – PCM states - “Why don’t you just quit college, you need a GI guy” • Initial Specialty Visit– “Excellent” but rushed; • Treatment focused on medications and diet 6-1 • No educational provided
    2. 2. The Case for Change – Care isFragmentedChronic Illness Care• Hospitalization one - flu symptoms – GI specialist defers to PCM; PCM not available; • ER Visit – Hospitalized for “Crohn’s Flare” • Put on prednisone – “I got really crazy, I didnt know who to call”• Hospitalization two –bleeding, (Hct 28), abdominal pain for 3 days, • PCM not available, ER visit - repeated all labs and two more CTs • After 3 days, released to dorm, falling behind in school• Hospitalization three –abdominal pain, vomiting and HA, (PCM /GI not available) • ER Visit – Lumbar Puncture and Admitted – after two days, HA worse, “when I stand up” but discharged anyway --“I lost the chance to take my finals” • Readmitted for 3 days, received blood patch after caffeine unsuccessful• Patient initiates talk with PCM – about availability and self care, obtains e mail, direct phone number – no more hospitalizations for 18 months. 6-2• Communication is a GAME CHANGER !!
    3. 3. The Case for Change:Processes are Not Patient Centered July 2009 – Happy Birthday – “You are no longer eligible for TRICARE and have been dropped from PRIME” Several hours to reestablish PRIME but, needed new referral for gastroenterologist. Had to be there in person. • Waited 2 hours in PCM office, seen for 3 minutes, to get referral, no exam. • Referral lost by TRICARE or PCM? Pain returns, PCM not available, referral not done so could not see gastroenterologist. • ER, Hospitalized, returned home but, no F/U, ER again one week later. (10.23 then 10/31) 6-3
    4. 4. Let’s Evaluate the Outcomes Experience of Care: Patient Centered – no helplessness • “Most of the time, I just need someone to answer my questions or tell me I don’t need to worry, I hate going to doctors and I don’t want to be in the hospital.” • ” If they had explained what this illness is all about, I would have learned sooner. I could have figured out how to live my life with Crohn’s” • “And why can’t they keep my records? I feel like they don’t believe anything that comes out of my mouth. But, its my body. Now, I have my own personal health record – its self defense. I am not going to get screwed again.” Timely – no unwanted waits Effective - evidence based interventions • Who is following outcomes for all Crohn’s patients? • Were the hospitalizations consistent with evidence based care? How would we know? Equitable – care for everyone Safe – no needless death or injury • Was the LP a harm event? Efficient – No Waste • Four hospitalizations and five ER visits – 2007 • One hospitalization and two ER visits - 2009 • Could any of these have been avoided? 6-4
    5. 5. Cost of Care –Actual Billed ChargesHospitalization 10/22-10/24 ER Visit 11/01Med-Surg $1,109 • Med Sur $112Pharm $556 • Lab/Chem $587IV $11 • Lab/Hem $91Supplies $109 • Lab/Bact $295Lab $58 • Lab/Uro $60Lab/Immun $378 • Ultrasound $893Lab/Hem $301 • ER $1,134Lab/Micro $75 • Pul Fxn $112Lab/Uro $143 • Drugs $305CT Scan Body $4,263 • Per Vasc $1,531ER $1,668 • Other Rx $1,104Pulmonary Fxn $224 • Total $6,224Drugs $360Other Rx $1,249Total $11,677 6-5
    6. 6. MHS Performance Report Card 2011 * Target Current Improving Readiness 1 Medically Ready to Deploy 81% 78% 2 PTSD Screening, Referral (R) and Treatment (T) 50%/75% 46%/76% 3 Depression Screening, Referral (R) and Treatment (T) 50%/75% 65%/79% / Population Health 4 MHS Cigarette Use Rate (Active Duty 18-24) ($) 19% 20% 5 Percent of Overweight/Obese Adults with Documented Weight Issue 30%/75% 17%/54% / 6 Percent of Overweight/Obese Adolescents/Children with Documented Weight Issue 30%/50% 11%/33% NC / 7 Exclusive Breastfeeding During Newborn Hospitalization 65% 62% 8 HEDIS Index: Preventive Cancer Screens & Well Child Visits (DC/PC) 10/10 8/6 NC Experience of Care 9 HEDIS Index: Cardiovascular, Diabetic & Mental Health Care (DC/PC) 29/18 23/5 / NC 10 Hospital Readmission Rate (Medical/Surgical) -- -- -- 11 Patient Safety - Wrong Site Surgery (Under Development) 0 2 NC 12 Antibiotic Received Within 1 Hour Prior to Surgical Incision 98% 95% NC 13 Percentage of Medical Boards Completed Within 35 Days (IDES) 60% 43% 14 Percent of Service Members Rating Medical Evaluation Board Experience as Favorable 65% 50% 15 Primary Care 3rd Available Appointment (Routine/Acute) 92%/70% 69%/48% / 16 Satisfaction with Getting Timely Care 78% 75% 17 Potentially Recapturable Primary Care Workload for MTF Enrollment Sites ($) 26% 34% 18 Percent of Visits Where MTF Enrollees See Their PCM 65% 53% 19 Satisfaction with Health Care 61% 59% NC Per Capita Cost 20 Annual Percent Increase in Per Capita Costs ($) 3.1% 5.5% 21 Emergency Room Visits Per 100 Enrollees Per Year ($) 35 47 22 Primary Care Staff Satisfaction -- -- -- 6-6($) Denotes lower is better Yes No 6* 2011 data lag 3-6months
    7. 7. Turning Strategy to Action: Our 2012 MHS Strategic InitiativesReadiness• Operating our MTFs at full capacity• Implement policies, procedures & partnerships to meet individual medical readiness goals• Integrate & optimize psychological health programs to improve outcomes and enhance value• Implement DoD/VA Joint strategic plan for mental health to improve coordinationPopulation Health• Improve measurement and management of population health to accelerate the shift from healthcare to healthExperience of Care• Implement evidence based practices across the MHS to improve quality and safety• Implement patient centered medical home of care to increase satisfaction, improve performance in achieving the Quadruple Aim• Optimize pharmacy practices to improve quality and reduce costs• Create alternative strategy for purchasing care to improve Quadruple Aim performancePer Capita Cost• Implement alternative payment mechanisms to pay for value (performance planning)Learning & Growth• Implement modernized EHR to improve outcomes and enhance interoperability• Improve governance to achieve better Quadruple Aim performance 6-7
    8. 8. Bringing Care Back into our MTFsMilitary Treatment Facility Workload Outpatient Weighted Workload Inpatient Weighted Workload 450 50 400 45 40 350 Thousands of RWPs 35 300 Millions of RVUs 30 250 25 200 20 150 15 100 10 50 5 0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 In-House Care Private Sector Care In-House Care Private Sector Care Note: Private sector care has increased about 20% while in-house care has decreased about 10%. 6-8
    9. 9. The Partnerships for Patients –Background and Focus • Originally sponsored by the White House under the title: “National Patient Safety Initiative” • Renamed “The Partnership for Patients” with two aims: − Keeping patients from getting injured or sicker. Accidents happen, and too often patients in hospitals experience preventable harm. The initiative seeks to increase efforts to prevent patient harm in hospitals. By the end of 2013, hospital acquired harm would decrease by 40% compared to 2010 − Helping patients heal without complication. Patients are often at their most vulnerable state when leaving the hospital to continue healing at home, in an assisted living facility, or in other care settings. The initiative seeks to improve continuity and effectiveness of care during transitions from one care setting to another and thereby to decrease preventable hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge. By the end of 2013, preventable complications during a transition from one care setting to another would be decreased such that unplanned hospital readmissions would be reduced by 20% compared to 2010 6-9
    10. 10. What is our Aim? To work collaboratively across the entireMHS to reduce hospital acquired conditions, improvequality and reduce costs -Reduce hospital acquired conditions by 40% by the end of CY 2013 • Need to identify types of hospital acquired conditions (i.e. infections, falls, pressure ulcers, etc.) and 2010 baseline -Reduce unplanned readmissions by 20% by the end of CY 2013 • Need to agree on what readmissions will be excluded • Need to focus on best opportunities for improvement (Mental health, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.) -Demonstrate MHS success in knowledge transfer and best practice dissemination • This is about execution of established protocols to reduce patient harm and avoid non-value added health services (unplanned readmissions) 6-10
    11. 11. Direct Care Acquired ConditionsLAW 10 USC 1102, the confidential and privileged information contained herein may not be disclosedoutside of DoD without appropriate authorization. Violations are punishable by fines or other actions. 6-11
    12. 12. Why are we doing this now? • It is a strategic imperative for the MHS • Need to prove our assertion that we can improve quality while reducing costs • MHS readmission rates are comparable to national benchmarks • Need to demonstrate excellence in management of mental illness • We do not measure hospital acquired harm in a standard and transparent manner so it is difficult to systematically improve • We have committed to the National Partnership for Patients • ASD(HA) formally joined partnership with HHS in May • Over 3000 hospitals and health systems have joined to reach the goals of the partnership for patients 6-12

    ×