1 / 21

Process Improvement Team “Response Times”

Process Improvement Team “Response Times”. February 23, 2007. Team Members Jim Pettit, Paramedic Vince Macias, Paramedic Mike Martin, Paramedic Rob Sewell, EDC Lieutenant Kathy Giardina, EMS Lieutenant. Team Facilitators Warren Panem, EMS Shift Commander

jerry-nunez
Download Presentation

Process Improvement Team “Response Times”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ProcessImprovement Team“Response Times” February 23, 2007

  2. Team Members Jim Pettit, Paramedic Vince Macias, Paramedic Mike Martin, Paramedic Rob Sewell, EDC Lieutenant Kathy Giardina, EMS Lieutenant Team Facilitators Warren Panem, EMS Shift Commander David Wheaton, EMS Shift Commander Sponsor Mary Kim Dickerson, EMS Operations Chief Project Team

  3. Define Phase • Problem statement EMS is constantly challenged to maximize efficiency by minimizing response times. Quicker and more appropriate responses by needed units will serve the citizens and visitors of Lee County by serving them to the best of our ability. The goal of responding to emergency calls less than 8:59 > 90% of the time is not being met.

  4. Project ImpactDefine Phase • Alignment to County’s goals and objectives • Goal 2:  Make Lee County Government the benchmark county in Florida for innovation and excellence in customer service and technological operations. • Objective 1:  Continue assessment of organizational practices through continuous improvement techniques. • Objective 3:  Continue to actively pursue technology systems that increase productivity and efficiency, and decrease costs.

  5. Project ImpactDefine Phase • Project goal County Ordinance - Response time average below 8 minutes or responses <8:59 at least 90% of the time. Our goal - Anticipated savings based on a reduction in unit hours necessary = $165,000 annually by minimizing response time.

  6. Project ScopeDefine Phase • In scope All emergency calls and type I transfers • Out of scope Calls cancelled prior to arrival and Type II or III transfers

  7. Process Flow ChartMeasure Phase

  8. Measure Phase

  9. Measure Phase

  10. Critical Performance IndicatorsAnalyze Phase

  11. Critical Performance IndicatorsAnalyze Phase

  12. SIPOC DiagramAnalyze Phase Call dispatched Response Time Unit arrives on scene

  13. Analyze Phase

  14. Analyze Phase • Listing of root causes • Offloads – non-value added time awaiting unit availability • Transfers – 5% of total call volume – being treated as emergency calls • Clock stops upon Paramedic arrival – outlying medics arrive on scene, fire department medics on scene • Peak Demand issues • Staffing – too many units at night – not enough during the day • Roaming Units – peak demand with no designated zone

  15. Improve PhaseSolution PrioritizationMatrix

  16. Improve Phase Pilot Program: February 15-28 – Shift command will place units available 10 minutes after offload except trauma alerts and priority one calls March – Medics 1,2,3,4,7,18 will not provide any interfacility transfers April – Add 2 peak load units

  17. Improve Phase • Results from pilot – will not be available until May 1 • Preliminary data to be continually shared

  18. Control Phase • Identification of process owner • EMS Shift Command

  19. Control PhaseWhat to measure

  20. Hand-off Issues(Parking Lot Issues) • Peak load staffing • Static deployment • Accuracy of AVLs

  21. Questions?

More Related