1 / 8

Presenter: Lyndell Keating Hospital Name: The Alfred Hospital

The Health Roundtable. New Zealand. Aim / Title: Allied Health Managing the Fluctuations of Inpatient Demand Across the Hospital – Using Priority Tools & Workload Sharing Mechanisms. 1 Allied Health Making a Difference. Presenter: Lyndell Keating Hospital Name: The Alfred Hospital

rune
Download Presentation

Presenter: Lyndell Keating Hospital Name: The Alfred Hospital

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. The Health Roundtable New Zealand Aim / Title: Allied Health Managing the Fluctuations of Inpatient Demand Across the Hospital – Using Priority Tools & Workload Sharing Mechanisms 1 Allied Health Making a Difference Presenter: Lyndell Keating Hospital Name: The Alfred Hospital Key contact for this project: Lyndell Keating l.keating@alfred.org.au

  2. Key Problem • Increasing demand & fluctuations between units • 12.1% un-met demand for allied health yet this varied significantly between units – from 0EFT for some units up to 2.65EFT for the trauma unit • Some departments didn’t have flexible workload allocation methods to manage short term or long term fluctuations in demand or clear leave cover strategies • Departments that did have priority tools had inconsistencies within the discipline and these weren’t consistent across disciplines

  3. Key Strategies / Ideas Implemented • Draft inpatient priority tools developed with a uniform approach • Used stats to look at the difference between EFT allocated and EFT provided • Collection of un-met demand data by unit which was used to aid communication to staff re the problem • Collection of un-met demand data by priority (mid-way) which was used to aid in communication to staff re the problem • Strategies developed re flexible workload sharing

  4. Priority Ratio –Implementation Example • Ideally the high priority un-met OOS should have been seen • Wall efficiency ratio of 76.5% • Efficiency = (Capacity - Potentially Met Demand) / Capacity

  5. Key Outcomes Achieved • Priority tools across PT, OT, SP, Nut, Orthotics, SW & SP – uniform tools that can be easily communicated to stakeholders • Improved sharing of workloads across units – less variability in un-met demand • E.g. pre-implementation unmet demand varied from 0 - 1.2EFT between units for SW • post-implementation unmet demand varied from 0 - 0.4EFT for SW • Less un-met demand for high priority patients – better “efficiency score”

  6. Priority Ratio – Post-Implementation Example • Wall efficiency ratio = 93.4% • A shift towards more of the high priority pts being seen

  7. Lesson Learned • Challenging discussions to develop the priority tools re importance and urgency • Flexible workload allocations need to be balanced with skill mix requirements and need for continuity of care • Data is a useful tool to communicate to staff re inequitable caseloads

More Related