200 likes | 373 Views
Critical Event Analysis in Primary Care . RNZCGP Quality Symposium Wellington 2009. Introduction . Practice structure Integration with other quality activities Examples Future directions. Paraparaumu Medical Centre. 3 Practice teams 4500 patients
E N D
Critical Event Analysisin Primary Care RNZCGP Quality Symposium Wellington 2009
Introduction • Practice structure • Integration with other quality activities • Examples • Future directions
Paraparaumu Medical Centre • 3 Practice teams • 4500 patients • Established for 20 years – previous practice for about 20 years prior to that. • Middle SES • 2 main age groups • Elderly • Young families
Framework of Quality at PMC • Cornerstone – accreditation • PHO reporting-immunisations, cervical screening • Patient satisfaction survey – twice a year with registrars • Own audits and goals • Peer review – doctors, nurses, receptionist meetings • Standardised procedures • Clinical (advanced forms) • Non-clinical
Weekly Team Meetings • Balanced scorecard • Week 1 – Staff • Week 2 - Patients • Week 3 – Internal Processes • Week 4 - Finances
Critical Event Process • Fits into the weekly meeting cycle • Team process – team solutions • Simple • Informal – but not unplanned • High face value • Non- judgemental • Potential and actual events (before the event) • Not time consuming • Process based • Time frame for review
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY CARE CRITICAL EVENT ANALYSIS • Advantages • Small team size • Control over all aspects of the process • Broad definition of critical event • Continuous improvement process • all events trigger a review of process and a review time • Potential and actual events • Before the event (vs audit) • Appropriate to business size • Local problems and local solutions • Evolutionary
Disability Forms • Problem – disability form lost • Review • Multiple processes • Multiple places to put the forms • No defined timeframes • Solution • Clearly defined process • Forms collected • Logged • Put in a folder • Written up Monday lunchtime • Available for collection Monday afternoon • Measure • Number of lost forms and time spent searching
INR testing • Problem – patient not tested for 2 months • Solution • Add a recall when patient phoned • When recalls reviewed missing patients identified • Further activity • Audit of warfarin dosing using BPAC resource • Adding diagnosis, INR range and treatment time to an alert in patient notes • Measure • Audit and number of missing INR’s
Child appointment • Patient rang for appointment for infant • Relieving nurse • Doctor short • Receptionist • ascertained this was not and emergency • told the mother that the child would be seen • Told mother to leave message on nurses answer phone
Child Appointment (2) • Message left on nurses answer phone • Nurse called back in 20 minutes • Mother had taken child to another provider • Child admitted to hospital with viral infection • Felt we could do better • Talked to mother, receptionist, nurse • Revised then process and clarified the message to patients • Measure • patients seen by other providers • Patient satisfaction survey
Broken Nose • 15 year old • Fractured nose at sporting event • Seen at an A&M – xray • Presented Monday morning • Rang ENT registrar • Faxed referral • Told appointment would be on Wednesday • 5 weeks later letter of apology
Broken Nose (2) • Reviewed our process • Clearly communicate our expectations to the patient and to ask them to call up if there were any problems • Difficulty – lack of forum to discuss this critical event • Measure • Further similar critical events
Requirements • All the team involved • Everyone can comment • Regular meetings – continual focus • Specific to local needs – not PHO or DHB although some critical events cross boundaries • Clear face value validity Improving patient care • Simple methods – root cause, 5 why’s – “What is really going on?” • Clear systems which can be adapted and continuously improved • IT platform
Has it made a difference • Team says – “Yes” • Management efficiency • Clinical improvement • Hard to quantify but qualitative analysis is positive
Future Developments • Within practice • Increasing clinical focus • More critical events in peer review and nurses meetings • Clearer linkage between standardised process, audit and critical events • Measuring the effect of critical event analysis
Wish list • Resources for critical events • Interaction with other levels of critical events • Analysis of effectiveness of methods of critical event review