1 / 29

International Society of Orthopaedic Centers Metrics Collaboration Project

International Society of Orthopaedic Centers Metrics Collaboration Project. October 13-15, 2011. Agenda 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Overview of work since last meeting 8:00-8:20 Discussion questions 8:20-8:25 Break out groups 8:25-8:55 Report out: Group 1 8:55-9:10

eilis
Download Presentation

International Society of Orthopaedic Centers Metrics Collaboration Project

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. International Society of Orthopaedic Centers Metrics Collaboration Project October 13-15, 2011

  2. Agenda 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. • Overview of work since last meeting 8:00-8:20 • Discussion questions 8:20-8:25 • Break out groups 8:25-8:55 • Report out: Group 1 8:55-9:10 • Report out: Group 2 9:10-9:25 • Consensus 9:25-10:00 2

  3. ISOC CEO Metrics Collaboration • Quote from article… • “The CEOs decided to take on an interim project to identify best practices for collecting data around performance measurement, both clinically and operationally” • Question to be answered… • Is sharing performance metrics a good starting point for ISOC CEO collaboration? 3

  4. Process • Members asked to submit the top 1-3 metrics considered most important for tracking and reporting performance across six subject areas: • Operations • Quality and Safety • Patient Experience • Employee Satisfaction • Financial Performance • Research and Teaching 4

  5. Process (Continued) • Evaluated responses for Alignment • A total of 48 metrics were identified • Eliminated metrics that were only reported by a few institutions or were overlap metrics, e.g. many different metrics around patient satisfaction • Eliminated 4 financial metrics due to differences in country reimbursement systems 5

  6. Top Metrics • 8 metrics which were reported by six or more institutions as one of the “top” metrics for tracking performance • In some cases, definitions are same, for others, there is variation. This will be among the items to be discussed/addressed 6

  7. 2010 “ DRAFT” Dashboard 7

  8. Metrics Eliminated from ‘Top’ list 8

  9. Operations 9

  10. Quality and Safety 10

  11. Patient Experience Variations on one of the top metrics 11

  12. Employee Satisfaction Variations on one of the top metrics 12

  13. Research and Teaching Partial variation on one of the top metrics 13

  14. Financial 14

  15. Key Questions for Discussion • Is there value in collaborating regarding metrics? • Will comparison of operational and performance metrics allow for meaningful collaboration and facilitate improvement efforts? • How do we go about utilizing the dashboard for improvement efforts? • How do we go about conducting the analysis in a way that ensures we are comparing the same thing? • Should we use the same definition? • Should we measure using greater level of detail? (i.e. more specific such as Average Length of Stay for unicondylar knee replacement) • What’s missing? • Are there top metrics missing from the chosen areas which we should add? • Are there any additional subject areas from which we should include metrics? • How would we support data collection? How should we make this operational? 15

  16. Draft Breakout Groups • Group 1 • Lou Shapiro (Lead) • Luis Ibarra • Matthias Spielmann • Peter Hoppener • Elena Botinelli • Robert Cusack • Rob Hurd • Group 2 • Pelle Gustafson (Lead) • Maricela Verdejo • Alejandro de Marinis • Sibylle Stauch-Eckmann • Stefano Liverani • George Hernandez • Laura Robbins 16

  17. Appendix 1. McKinsey Hospital Institute: Time permitting we may review the following slides2. Metric Submission: Metric work sheets included for information 17

  18. Appendix 1: McKinsey Hospital Institute 18

  19. McKinsey Hospital Institute • McKinsey Hospital Institute (MHI) is the part of McKinsey & Company focused on increasing performancetransparency and generating lasting impact for providers • MHI is built on the foundation of McKinsey & Company,delivered in a highly affordable, non-invasive, high impact way • MHI provides consulting and tools in an ongoing relationship • Granular analytics to quantify and prioritize opportunities • Benchmarks and best practices • Implementation support and capability building • Best-in-class tools for ongoing tracking and monitoring • MHI supports providers over time across their most important issues: • Operating at Medicare Margins • Physician alignment, strategy and performance • Strategic planning under uncertainty 19

  20. Dashboard Options through McKinsey Hospital Institute 20

  21. Potential Dashboard Options Increasing (>10%) Above target Stable (10% to -5%) Equivalent (-5% to 0) Decreasing (< -5%) Below target (< -5%) Representative ISOC Group Dashboard 21

  22. Potential Dashboard Options Increasing (>10%) Above target Stable (10% to -5%) Equivalent (-5% to 0) Decreasing (< -5%) Below target (< -5%) Representative ISOC Member Dashboard 22

  23. Appendix 2: Metric Submissions 23

  24. Operations and Volumes Metric Submission 24

  25. Quality and Safety Metric Submission 25

  26. Patient Experience Metric Submission 26

  27. Employee Engagement Metric Submission 27

  28. Financial Performance Metric Submission 28

  29. Academic Evaluation Metric Submission 29

More Related