using medhub and process streamlining to make ......using medhub and process streamlining to make...
TRANSCRIPT
Using MedHub and Process Streamlining to Make Organizing & Documenting GME / Accreditation Data Easy
Nancy Piro, PhD – Program Manager/Ed Specialist Stanford GMEBrett Toensing, MS – MedHub/Web Coordinator
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
AGENDA – Leveraging MedHub
Process Streamlining Tips & Tricks
Setting Priorities
− Citation Analysis
Program Evaluations
− Standardizing Delivery and Documentation
Summative Evaluations
− Incoming and Outgoing Trainees
− Standardized Template and Electronic Filing
− Program Needs Analysis
Organizing data for:
− CCCs
− APEs / Self-Studies
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Thinking Outside the Box – Looking to Industry and Corporations
What does industry have that we can use?
− Conveyor belt to move patients in and out of OR’s? …..No……
But they do use a “Lean Philosophy”
− Respect for People
− Total Elimination of Waste
And they use “Lean Tools” such as
− Kaizen
− 3 M’s
− 5S’s
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Lean – Toyota Production System (TPS)
TPS system managed to get by with “half of everything”!
− Physical space
− Personnel
− Capital Investment
− Inventory
Resulted in far fewer than half the defects and safety incidents
Make problems visible – not hide them or “not talking about mistakes/problems”
Fix problems permanently – get to the “root cause” and eliminate it.
Focus on the value of people and respect for people.
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Sample of “Lean Tools” … Kaizen
What is ‘Kaizen’?
Gradual, unending continuous improvement of processes
Processes must be improved to get improved results
By improving and standardizing activities and processes, Kaizen aims to eliminate waste
Focus is on small, incremental change (not necessarily huge leaps, innovation)
Quality Control = Quality of People
− “A company that is able to build quality into its people is halfway to building quality outcomes”
Respect for People
− “Only people produce improvements”
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Lean Tools: - 3M’s
All about Waste- Identifying and Removing it
− MURI = Waste of overburdening people or equipment/resources
− MURA = Waste of unevenness, variability in processes
− MUDA = Waste of using resources without creating added value
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Five Why’s Problem Solving Method
Keep asking ‘Why?’ until you discover the root cause of the problem
− No magic in 5 –
might be 3, or 7, or 10
Why do we? (…conduct orientation in person, fill out multiple forms, have residents take on line training for non MDs? ….)
Combine with Lean Tools: – Fishbone Charts using the 4Ms – 4 Ps
Manpower/Personnel
Materials
Method(s)
Machines / Equipment
People
Process
Policies
Principles
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Ishikawa Diagram of ER Prolonged Wait Times
Materials Methods/Process
Manpower/People Machine \ Equipment
WHY? WHY?
WHY? WHY?
xxx …wait time in the ER
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
5Ss - Mnemonics Retained
Sorting
Simplifying
Sweeping
Standardizing
Self Discipline
= Seiri
= Seiton
= Seiso
= Seiketsu
= Shitsuke
QUICK EXERCISE
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
5Ss in Action
10
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
AFTERBEFORE
ER Rooms
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Putting Philosophy into Practice
Flowcharted the processes
− Asked: “Why are we doing this?”
‘Fish boned’ the problem
Looked for the 3Ms
Applied the 5Ss
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
CURRENT CULTURE
96 programs (96 fiefdoms all doing their own thing….but having common requirements)
Lack of standardization/inconsistencies (MURA)
Overburden (MURI)
Waste (MUDA) of both materials and time
− Lots of files
− Time to file personnel folders or
ACGME letters
Time-consuming institutional oversight of programs (MUDA, MURI)
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Standardizing Program Evaluations in MedHub
Factors driving decision to standardize our Program Evaluations:
− Largest number of program citations from ACGME/RRCs
− Lack of consistent data on program evaluation for APEs (MURA)− Huge amount of paper generated to produce suboptimal evaluations (MUDA)− Burden of work on the coordinators (MURI)
What did we do?
Developed standardized comprehensive core competency-based Program Evaluations – by Faculty and Trainees
Presented the draft templates to the Program Directors who edited and approved them.
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Standardized Program Evaluations – Process Implementation
Then implemented - Annually the GME Department:
− Delivers (via MedHub, of course!)
>190 Program evaluations to > 1500 trainees and faculty
Tracks Evals Delivered for each program and Average Results for each Eval
Aggregates each program’s data after the evals have been completed
‘Prints’ (electronically to pdfs) their aggregate Program evaluation reports
Posts the Program Eval Reports (pdfs) on each Program’s APE site in MedHub
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Program Evaluation Standardization Example
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Standardization of Program Evaluations
Benefits
− Fewer citations
− Can be input to our Institutional Report Card
− Easy oversight by DIO/GMEC
− Early warning system
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Summative Evaluations – What did we do?
Developed Standard Evaluation Template for Summative Evaluations
Comprehensive over program training years
Core-competency based
User friendly word document
Held Program Director and Program Coordinator Teaching Sessions / Workshops
Taught the use of the template and how to pair it with aggregated evaluation data MedHub
Programs could select the evaluations to use and aggregate–
− We recommended:
Evaluations Competencies by Resident
Resident/Faculty Ranking Report (aggregate)
Aggregate Comments Report
Evaluation Competencies Report
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Coordinate with Aggregated Evaluation Data
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Summative Evaluation Template
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Macro-enabled Word Doc
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Summative Evaluations - Additional Considerations
Special Cases
− At the end of a preliminary year (internship)
Need to list Rotations
Review report with trainee
Place a copy of the summative evaluation in the Trainee’s permanent file and upload to MedHub
We also obtain Summative Evaluations from our trainees coming in from another GME program for all the programs and upload them to MedHub also
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Switching Gears From Summatives to CCCs
CCCs
Summatives
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
CCCs
CCC MedHub Online Functionality –
− Assign Files / Aggregated Evaluations to Program Faculty for Pre-Work
− Upload all required data for Preliminary Review and the CCCX meeting
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Pulling the Data Together
Clinical Competency Committee
End-of-Rotation
Evaluations
Safety Incident Reports
Case Logs
Patient/ Family
Evaluations
Clinical Skills
Assessment
Nursing and Staff / Techs
EvaluationsProgress on Milestones
SimLab
In service In-service training exams
Quality Improvement
Activities
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Data used in CCC meetings for trainee assessment
26
65.38%
93.85%
76.92%
44.62%
63.08%
36.92%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Aggregate DirectMilestone
Evaluations
Aggregate RotationEvaluations
Staff or patient(360) Evaluations
Technical SkillsAssessments/Mini-
CEX's
Scholarly Activities
Case Volumes
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
EvaluationsMilestone End of Rotation (Total)Medical KnowledgePatient CareInterpersonal & Communication SkillsProfessionalismSystems-Based PracticePractice-Based Learning & Improvement
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 1 – Defining what to track
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
In-service Assessments (MK; PC)Routine procedure technical skills assessment: Level 2-3Complex procedure technical skills assessment: Level 3-4Medical Knowledge Assessments
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 1 – Defining what to track
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Case Logs / Clinical Experience (PC)VAGINAL DELIVERYCAESAREAN SECTIONPEDIATRICSPEDIATRICS UNDER 3CARDIACENDOVASCULAR
Creating a Resident Performance Profile Step 1 –Defining what to track
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Quality Improvement/Patient SafetyQI ProjectQI Committee ParticipationQI Course Work (e.g., IHI)SAFE Report / Adverse Event ReviewPatient Handover Evaluations
Creating a Resident Performance Profile Step 1 – Defining what to track
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Practice-Based LearningPatient outcomes / Case Study PresentationScholarly Activity: Research studyScholarly Activity: PublicationsPresentation at Internal and National Meeting
Creating a Resident Performance Profile Step 1 – Defining what to track
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
CommunicationPatient Feedback Staff EvaluationMedical Student FeedbackPatient Handover Evaluations
Creating a Resident Performance Profile Step 1 – Defining what to track
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 2 - Link data sources to milestones
Evaluations MilestonesMilestone End of Rotation (Total) 24Medical Knowledge MK A1Patient Care PC A1-10Communication ICS A1-2Professionalism PROF 1-5Systems-Based Practice SBP A1-2Practice-Based Learning PBLI A1-4Quality Improvement/Patient SafetyQI Project PBLI1-2QI Committee Participation PBLI1-2QI Course Work (e.g., IHI) PBLI1-2SAFE Report / Adverse Event Review PROF1/2; SBP1Patient Handover Evaluations SBP1; ICS1
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Milestone Data Translation to Numerical Data
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 3: CCC defines performance ranges
At or Above Expectation: 2.8 and higher
Below Expectation:1.7 – 2.7
Remediation:Below 1.7
Example:
For all aggregate milestone evaluation scores for a PGY 3, the CCC defines these ranges:
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 4 – Set conditional formatting
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Example: Aggregate milestone evaluation data cells
Highlight cells to apply the conditional formatting
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 4 – Set conditional formatting
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Click on “Conditional Formatting”“Highlight Cells Rules”
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 4 – Set conditional formatting
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Select, “Greater Than” “Less Than” or “Between” to Set Value RangesChoose the corresponding fill color (e.g., red, yellow, green)
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileStep 4 – Set conditional formatting
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileCompiling and centralizing data
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Resident Performance Profile:Step 5: Enter in data
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Creating a Resident Performance ProfileVisual Trends and Detailed Data
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Creating a Resident Performance Profile-Visual Trends and Detailed Data: Another Example
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
There was no way we could have had an effective CCC meeting without completing pre-work.
44
90.58%
8.07%
1.35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
TRUE
FALSE
Notapplicable
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
MedHub CCC Functionality – Resources and Files
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Leveraging More MedHub Functionality
Conference attendance statistics
− Core competencies linked to specified conferences
− Attaching conference materials for later reference
Procedures and levels; linked procedure evaluations
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
• Resident portfolio toolsQI participation and outcomesScholarly Activity logs
Leveraging MedHub Functionality
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Leveraging MedHub Functionality
Aggregate reporting and graphic summaries
Peer or departmental average, individual average, minimum and maximum scores, standard deviation or listing of all scores
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
PGY 1 Ranked at Graduation Level
1
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
When Remediation is Evident
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Switching Gears From CCCs to APEs
CCCs
APEs
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) Must Monitor and Track (V.C.2):
1. RESIDENT PERFORMANCE
2. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
3. GRADUATE PERFORMANCE
4. PROGRAM QUALITY
5. PROGRESS ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR’S ACTION PLAN
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
RESIDENT PERFORMANCE
The most recent aggregated written evaluations of the residents submitted by faculty and other evaluators
In-training/In-service exam scores
Procedure logs (if applicable)
Scholarly activity (publications, presentations, grant awards, etc.)
Learning portfolios: documented quality improvement activities
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
ABMS certification status for all faculty
Updated faculty CVs
Documentation (faculty survey; attendance logs) of faculty participation in:− CME-type activities directed toward acquisition of clinical
knowledge and skills and also activities directed toward developing teaching abilities, professionalism, and abilities for incorporating the core competencies into practice
− Teaching (conferences, grand rounds, journal clubs, lecture-based CME events, workshops, directed QI projects, practice-improvement self study).
Faculty actively involved in mentor relationships with residents/fellows.
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
GRADUATE PERFORMANCE
Aggregated board exam pass rates
Aggregated alumni survey results (typically, such surveys target physicians one year and five years after graduation –survey questions may inquire about such items as current professional activities of graduates and perceptions on how well prepared they are as a result of the program)
Other outcome measures
− Practice location (underserved areas)
− Academic Affiliations
− Scholarly Activity
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Alumni Surveys …
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
PROGRAM QUALITY
The most recent aggregated written evaluations of the program submitted by faculty
The most recent aggregated written evaluations of the program (and/or specific rotations) submitted by residents
The most recent aggregated written evaluations of the faculty submitted by residents
Faculty’s recent scholarly activity (publications, presentations, grant awards, etc.)
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
PROGRAM QUALITY - Continued
The most recent ACGME survey results
The most recent GME House Staff survey results
The most recent GMEC Internal Review Report
Any recent communications from the ACGME or RRC
Program Report Card/Scorecard
− Trend Analyses
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
PROGRAM QUALITY - Continued
Curriculum
Overall and rotation-specific goals and objectives (Are they appropriate? Do they align with the core competencies?)
Didactic curriculum (Is there at least one regular conference targeted to the residents’ level?)
Opportunities for scholarly activity
Compliance with any new standards established by the ACGME, RRC, ABMS, etc.− Assessment Methods (Are evaluation tools appropriate? Do they align with
the core competencies?)
− Resources: Personnel (PD, PC, faculty), Affiliated Training Sites, Patient/Procedure Volume,
Learning Environment (space, call rooms, books, computers, etc.)
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
PROGRESS ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR’S ACTION PLAN
Review progress / (attempts to resolve problems) with respect to last year’s Annual Review delineating identified areas of weakness.
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Now… SWOT Analyses are being required
STRENGTH
OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY
THREATS
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
APE “SWOT” Analysis Tool - Fishbone / IshikawaPROGRAM
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Program Aims – ACGME PerspectiveThe AIM setting is part of the annual program evaluation
Relevant considerationsWho are our residents/fellows?What do we prepare them for? Academic practice Leadership and other rolesWho are the patients/populations we care for?
AIMS are a way to differentiate programs Self-study will ultimately evaluate program effectiveness in
meeting these aimsMoves beyond improvement solely based on compliance with
minimum standards Assessment of relevant initiatives and their outcomes
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Strengths and Weaknesses – Internal Factors
Strengths
Program factors that are likely to have a positive effect on (or be an enabler to) achieving your program’s aims are strengths.
Important to acknowledge and celebrate
What should definitely be continued (important question in an environment of limited resources)
Weaknesses
Program factors that are likely to have a negative effect on (or be a barrier to) achieving your program’s objectives are weaknesses.
Citations, areas for improvement and other information from ACGME
The Annual Program Evaluation and other program/institutional data sources
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Factors and contexts external to your programs (institutional, local, regional and national) that affect the program
Opportunities - Factors that favor the program, that the program may take advantage of / leverage
External Factors that are likely to have a positive effect on achieving or exceeding your program’s objectives not previously considered are called opportunities.
What are capabilities for further evolving the program; how can the program capitalize on them?
Has there been recent change in the program’s context that that creates an opportunity?
Are these opportunities ongoing, or is there a narrow window for them? How critical is the timing?
Opportunities – External Factor
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Threats – External Factors
Threats - Factors that pose risks.
External Factors and conditions that are likely to have a negative effect on achieving the program’s objectives, or making the objective redundant or un-achievable are called threats.
While the program cannot fully control them, beneficial to have plans to mitigate their effect
What external factors may place the program at risk?
What are changes in residents’ specialty choice, regulation, financing, or other factors that may affect the future success of the program?
Are there challenges or unfavorable trends in immediate context that may affect the program? e.g., faculty burdened with heavy clinical load that prevents effective teaching and mentorship
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Fishbone – Ishikawa diagram - SWOT Analysis Completed Example
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
APE – Program SWOT Action Plan in Workbook for Self Study Retention
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Sample Stanford APE Page
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Tools Can Be Downloaded @ www.gme.stanford.edu
GME Community Templates
Confidential – For Discussion Purposes Only
Questions