Corporate nuclear medicine: the implementation of a centralized management model.
(1/21)
OBJECTIVE: A trend in corporate healthcare is the merging of small community hospitals with larger regional hospitals to expand the patient base. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the benefits of operating several nuclear medicine departments under a centralized management system, rather than operating many decentralized departments. The issues discussed are the development, financial benefits, operations, and structure of a corporate nuclear medicine department. METHODS: Seven nuclear medicine departments were integrated to form one corporate nuclear medicine department from a large hospital organization comprising seven different hospitals. The management team created the concept and advised administration. Training programs were designed and implemented, and committees were formed to ensure the efficient operation of the integrated department. All aspects of the department, such as scheduling and interpretation of studies, are managed at a central location. All technologists rotate to all hospitals. Success was measured by cost savings, study turn-around times, and evaluation of patient and employee satisfaction. RESULTS: It was found that establishing a corporate nuclear medicine department created a greater patient base by servicing a larger geographic area, and resulted in savings of $870,000 annually. Standardizing procedures and protocols allowed for consistency in patient care, an inpatient turnaround time of 24 h, and a dictated report turnaround time of 30 min. Employee relations and satisfaction remained consistent with a 4.76 out of a 5.0 leadership index rating. CONCLUSION: A nuclear medicine department with a centralized management system is a viable option for corporate health care. It is recommended for operations endeavoring to expand the patient base and improve the financial picture. (+info)
The Sheffield experiment: the effects of centralising accident and emergency services in a large urban setting.
(2/21)
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of centralisation of accident and emergency (A&E) services in a large urban setting. The end points were the quality of patient care judged by time to see a doctor or nurse practitioner, time to admission and the cost of the A&E service as a whole. METHODS: Sheffield is a large industrial city with a population of 471000. In 1994 Sheffield health authority took a decision to centralise a number of services including the A&E services. This study presents data collected over a three year period before, during and after the centralisation of adult A&E services from two sites to one site and the centralisation of children's A&E services to a separate site. A minor injury unit was also established along with an emergency admissions unit. The study used information from the A&E departments' computer system and routinely available financial data. RESULTS: There has been a small decrease in the number of new patient attendances using the Sheffield A&E system. Most patients go to the correct department. The numbers of acute admissions through the adult A&E have doubled. Measures of process efficiency show some improvement in times to admission. There has been measurable deterioration in the time to be seen for minor injuries in the A&E departments. This is partly offset by the very good waiting time to be seen in the minor injuries unit. The costs of providing the service within Sheffield have increased. CONCLUSION: Centralisation of A&E services in Sheffield has led to concentration of the most ill patients in a single adult department and separate paediatric A&E department. Despite a greatly increased number of admissions at the adult site this change has not resulted in increased waiting times for admission because of the transfer of adequate beds to support the changes. There has however been a deterioration in the time to see a clinician, especially in the A&E departments. The waiting times at the minor injury unit are very short. (+info)
Equity of access to tertiary hospitals in Wales: a travel time analysis.
(3/21)
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to investigate the implications for equity of geographical access for population subgroups arising from hypothetical scenarios of change in configuration of National Health Service tertiary hospital service provision located in Wales. METHODS: For each of three scenarios, the status quo and centralization of services to one of two locations, we used a travel time road length matrix in geographical information software to calculate the proportion of the population living within 30, 60, 90 and 120 min travel of each hospital site and the associated mean, median and 90th percentile travel times. We analysed data for the total resident population of Wales, for residents aged 75 or more years, for residents of the most deprived 10 per cent of enumeration districts, and for residents of rural areas. RESULTS: Centralization of services reduces geographical access for all population subgroups. Access varies between population subgroups, both between and within different scenarios of service configuration. A change in service configuration may improve access for one subgroup but reduce access for another. The interpretation may also vary according to whether the defined cut point for comparing access is based on short or long travel times. Measurements of absolute and relative access are sensitive to the assumed travel speeds. CONCLUSION: Access for the total population does not imply equity of access for subgroups of the population. Comparisons of access between scenarios are dependent on which measure of access is the indicator of choice. Results are sensitive to the road network travel speeds and further local validation may be necessary. This method can provide explicit information to health service planners on the effects on equity of access from a change in service configuration. (+info)
Reexamining organizational configurations: an update, validation, and expansion of the taxonomy of health networks and systems.
(4/21)
OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess how the original cluster categories of hospital-led health networks and systems have changed over time; (b) identify any new patterns of cluster configurations; and (c) demonstrate how additional data can be used to refine and enhance the taxonomy measures. DATA SOURCES; 1994 and 1998 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey of Hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: As in the original taxonomy, separate cluster solutions are identified for health networks and health systems by applying three strategic/structural dimensions (differentiation, integration, and centralization) to three components of the health service/product continuum (hospital services, physician arrangements, and provider-based insurance activities). DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Factor, cluster, and discriminant analyses are used to analyze the 1998 data. Descriptive and comparative methods are used to analyze the updated 1998 taxonomy relative to the original 1994 version. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The 1998 cluster categories are similar to the original taxonomy, however, they reveal some new organizational configurations. For the health networks, centralization of product/service lines is occurring more selectively than in the past. For the health systems, participation has grown in and dispersed across a more diverse set of decentralized organizational forms. For both networks and systems, the definition of centralization has changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: In its updated form, the taxonomy continues to provide policymakers and practitioners with a descriptive and contextual framework against which to assess organizational programs and policies. There is a need to continue to revisit the taxonomy from time to time because of the persistent evolution of the U.S. health care industry and the consequent shifting of organizational configurations in this arena. There is also value in continuing to move the taxonomy in the direction of refinement/expansion as new opportunities become available. (+info)
Surgery for primary supratentorial brain tumors in the United States, 1988 to 2000: the effect of provider caseload and centralization of care.
(5/21)
Contemporary reports of patient outcomes after biopsy or resection of primary brain tumors typically reflect results at specialized centers. Such reports may not be representative of practices in nonspecialized settings. This analysis uses a nationwide hospital discharge database to examine trends in mortality and outcome at hospital discharge in 38,028 admissions for biopsy or resection of supratentorial primary brain tumors in adults between 1988 and 2000, particularly in relation to provider caseload. Multivariate analyses showed that large-volume centers had lower in-hospital postoperative mortality rates than centers with lighter caseloads, both for craniotomies (odds ratio [OR] 0.75 for a tenfold larger caseload) and for needle (closed) biopsies (OR 0.54). Adverse discharge disposition was also less likely at high-volume hospitals, both for craniotomies (OR 0.77) and for needle biopsies (OR 0.67). The annual number of surgical admissions increased by 53% during the 12-year study period, and in-hospital mortality rates decreased during this period, from 4.8% to 1.8%. Mortality rates decreased over time, both for craniotomies and for needle biopsies. Subgroup analyses showed larger relative mortality rate reductions at large-volume centers than at small-volume centers (73% vs. 43%, respectively). The number of US hospitals performing one or more craniotomies annually for primary brain tumors decreased slightly, and the number performing needle biopsies increased. There was little change in median hospital annual craniotomy caseloads, but the largest centers had disproportionate growth in volume. The 100 highest-caseload US hospitals accounted for an estimated 30% of the total US surgical primary brain tumor caseload in 1988 and 41% in 2000. Our findings do not establish minimum volume thresholds for acceptable surgical care of primary brain tumors. However, they do suggest a trend toward progressive centralization of craniotomies for primary brain tumor toward large-volume US centers during this interval. (+info)
Use of a prospective risk analysis method to improve the safety of the cancer chemotherapy process.
(6/21)
OBJECTIVE: To perform a risk analysis of the cancer chemotherapy process, by comparing five different organizations. To quantitatively demonstrate the usefulness of centralization and information technologies, to identify residual risks that may be the target of additional actions. STUDY DESIGN: A reengineering of the process started in 1999 and was planned to be finished in 2006. The analysis was performed after the centralization and at the beginning of information technologies integration. SETTING: Two thousand two hundred beds university hospital, with medical, surgical, haematological, gynaecological, geriatric, paediatric oncological departments. Twelve thousand cancer chemotherapies each year. METHODS: According to the failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) method, the failure modes were defined and their criticality indexes were calculated on the basis of the likelihood of occurrence, the potential severity for the patients, and the detection probability. Criticality indexes were compared and the acceptability of residual risks was evaluated. RESULTS: The sum of criticality indexes of 27 identified failure modes was 3596 for the decentralized phase, 2682 for centralization, 2385 for electronic prescription, 2081 for electronic production control, and 1824 for bedside scanning (49% global reduction). The greatest improvements concerned the risk of errors in the production protocols (by a factor of 48), followed by readability problems during transmission (14) and product/dose errors during the production (8). Among the six criticality indexes remaining superior to 100 in the final process, two were judged to be acceptable, whereas further improvements were planned for the four others. CONCLUSIONS: Centralization to the pharmacy was associated with a strong improvement but additional developments involving information technologies also contributed to a major risk reduction. A cost-effect analysis confirmed the pertinence of all developments, as the cost per gained criticality point remained stable all over the different phases. (+info)
Centralization of care for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
(7/21)
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of centralized referral of patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used to compare 2 referral strategies for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: 1) referral to an expert center, with a rate of optimal primary cytoreduction of 75% and utilization of combined intraperitoneal and intravenous adjuvant chemotherapy, and 2) referral to a less experienced center, with a rate of optimal primary cytoreduction of 25% and adjuvant treatment that consisted predominantly of intravenous chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from the perspective of society. RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the strategy of expert center referral had an overall cost per patient of $50,652 and had an effectiveness of 5.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The strategy of referral to a less experienced center carried an overall cost of $39,957 and had an effectiveness of 2.33 QALYs. The expert center strategy was associated with an additional 2.78 QALYs at an incremental cost of $10,695 but was more cost-effective, with a cost-effective ratio of $9893 per QALY compared with $17,149 per QALY for the less experienced center referral strategy. Sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo simulation confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: According to results from the decision-analysis model, centralized referral of patients with ovarian cancer to an expert center was a cost-effective healthcare strategy and represents a paradigm for quality cancer care, delivering superior patient outcomes at an economically affordable cost. Increased efforts to align current patterns of care with a universal strategy of centralized expert referral are warranted. (+info)
An empirical taxonomy of hospital governing board roles.
(8/21)