The Revolution in Hospital Management
The Revolution in Hospital Management
net/publication/7769985
CITATIONS READS
33 3,484
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kenneth R White on 02 July 2014.
................................................................................................
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Five healthcare systems that have either won the Malcolm Baldrige National Qual-
ity Award in Health Care or been documented in extensive case studies share a
common model of management: they all emphasize a broadly accepted mission;
measured performance; continuous quality improvement; and responsiveness to
the needs of patients, physicians, employees, and community stakeholders. This
approach produces results that are substantially and uniformly better than average,
across a wide variety of acute care settings. As customers, courts, and accrediting
and payment agencies recognize this management approach, we argue that it will
become the standard for all hospitals to achieve.
This article examines documented cases of excellent hospitals, using the reports
of three winners of the Baldrige National Quality Award in Health Care and pub-
lished studies of other institutions with exceptional records.
For more information on the content of this article, please contact Professor
Griffith at jrg@umich.edu. To purchase an electronic reprint of this article, go to
www.ache.org/pubs/jhmsub.cfm, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click
on the purchase link.
170
Photocopying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without
the permission of Health Administration Press. For permission,
please fax your request to 312.424.0014.
The Revolution in Hospital Management
171
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
TA B L E 1
Characteristics of Systems and Hospitals Studied
Hospital or Scope of
Healthcare System Documentation Size Service Locations
172
Photocopying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without
the permission of Health Administration Press. For permission,
please fax your request to 312.424.0014.
The Revolution in Hospital Management
173
174
175
FIGURE 1
SLH Leadership for Performance Excellence Model
VISION P
I R
M I
MISSION V P N
E O C
R R I
CORE VALUES Y T
A P
N L
STRATEGY T E
S
176
A Patient/Customer Focus
Manage Growth
O
L
R III, IV Measurement and
and Development A E Knowledge Management
N
M
P
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
FIGURE 2
SLH Hospital Scorecard Sample Template
SCORING CRITERIA
Target Stretch Goal Moderate Risk
Qtr Raw
Key Measure
Year
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Score
Total Margin 6
4
FINANCIAL
Operating Margin
Overall Satisfaction
8
(IP;OP;ED)
Longer Than
Expected Wait Time 7
(IP;OP;ED)
Responsiveness to
4
Complaints
Outcome of Care 9
IP Active Admitting
9
Physician Ratio
OP Admitting
5
Physician Counts
**Community IP
GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
6
Market Share
Eligible IP Market
5
Share - Draw Zips
Eligible IP Profitable
Market Share - Draw 3
Zips
IP PCP Referral -
6
Ratio - Draw Zips
OP Referral Counts
10
Draw Zips
***IP Clinical Care
8
Index
CLINICAL & ADMINISTRATIVE QUALITY
***Medical Staff
8
Clinical Indicator Index
Diversity 7
Job Coverage Ratio 8
**Competency 10
**Employee
7
Satisfaction
** Indicates annual measure. ***Detail in Appendix B Overall Score 7
Exceeding Goal 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr Goal 7
Goal Overall Score 7 7 Stretch 10
Moderate
Risk For performance to be scored greater than Level 1, the performance value must meet or exceed the scoring criteria within a Level.
177
178
Photocopying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without
the permission of Health Administration Press. For permission,
please fax your request to 312.424.0014.
The Revolution in Hospital Management
179
180
181
that when the strategy is pursued for (2003) employee turnover rate
a few years, it results in a situation has declined from 31 percent in
where people “understand where 1997 to 13.9 percent in 2003.
the numbers are coming from and The percentage of staff reporting
move on to improving . . . operations” positive morale has risen from 47
(Griffith and White 2003, 35). From percent in 1996 to 84 percent in
that emerges a culture that is evidence 2001. In 2002 and 2003, BHI was
based, quantitative, and committed ranked in the top 15 in Fortune’s
to continuous improvement. CHI 100 Best Companies to Work For
has shown substantial results in in America. SSMHC’s (2002) all-
only three years, with a modest employee turnover rate fell from 21
investment in hardware (Griffith percent in 1999 to 15 percent in
and White 2003). IHC’s managers 2002. SLH’s (2003) employee re-
believe its cost accounting system and tention approaches 90 percent. All
deliberate collaboration with physicians three exceed the Saratoga Institute’s
are as important to success as its median, which is about 70 percent
medical record technology (Bohmer, in 2002.
Edmondson, and Feldman 2003).
2. Create human resources systems
that foster high performance. Job
F O C U S O N S TA F F
descriptions, career progression,
This focus is defined as “how your
motivation, communication, recog-
organization’s work systems and
nition, and compensation are well-
staff learning and motivation enable
designed, integrated processes.
all staff to develop and utilize their
Selection, training, and on-the-
full potential . . . . and maintain a
job reinforcement of knowledge
work environment . . . conducive to
and skills are tied to individual
performance excellence and to personal
and organizational objectives and
and organizational growth” (Baldrige
action plans. Explicit policies pro-
Health Care Criteria 2004).
vide ways to recognize employ-
The Baldrige expects human
ees, physicians, and volunteers.
resource practices that attract and retain
An executive career development
competent and satisfied employees
program identifies and develops
and that continuously improve their
future leaders (SSMHC 2002). SLH
skills. The work environment must
develop staff, volunteers, students, and (2003) uses matrix accountability
independent practitioners by aligning to manage work and jobs, empha-
their expertise and efforts with the sizing multidisciplinary teams and
organization’s overall strategy. The committees to enhance a patient-
leading institutions do the following: focused delivery model.
3. Emphasize organizational learning
1. Strive to identify and keep good and adaptation to change. These
employees as the core of the hu- organizations provide more than
man resources strategy. BHI’s 40 hours training to each employee
182
183
Photocopying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without
the permission of Health Administration Press. For permission,
please fax your request to 312.424.0014.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
TA B L E 2
Examples of Successful Process Improvement from Baldrige Winners
Implementation of hospitalists BHI Substantial reduction in length of stay, and 34 percent decrease in cost of inpatient care
Clinical pathways SLH ∼60 percent of patients assigned treatment protocols
Medication errors and patient falls All Decreased substantially
Heart-risk screenings BHI More than doubled in three years
Patient satisfaction BHI Increased to, at, or near the 99th percentile (inpatients, outpatients, LifeFlight)
Referrals from primary care physicians SLH Improved by one-third
Admitting-physician satisfaction SLH Improved by one-quarter
Patient volumes BHI Six-year growth in admissions, outpatient, emergency department use
Cardiology and orthopedic market shares BHI Increased by one-third
184
Clinical Support Processes
Financial
Bond rating SSMHC Rating achieved by only 1 percent of U.S. hospitals
Current ratio BHI Steady increase, exceeds Moody’s median
Days in accounts receivable SLH Reduced by more than half, now below COTH top quartile
BHI Reduced by two-thirds and dropped below Moody’s median
SSMHC Increasing
185
Employee turnover/retention BHI Improved to “best in class”
SLH Improving, exceeds national benchmark
SSMHC Improving, top quartile of consultant’s data
Employees terminating because of dissatisfaction SLH Declining
186
Information system availability SLH 99.9 percent (SSMHC reported 99.5 percent; BHI reported “best in class”)
Information system customer satisfaction SSMHC Improving
Supply-order accuracy SLH Over 99 percent
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Journal of Healthcare Management 50:3 May/June 2005
that generate general waste and quality workers, and other stakeholders
problems are addressed. is broadly sought and sensitively
The leaders’ process management analyzed.
programs do the following: 6. Revise processes based on careful
analysis of qualitative and
1. Change the culture of their
quantitative information, “outside
organizations from professional
the box” search for alternatives,
judgment to measured performance.
and study of the work of others.
Nursing, medicine, human
Like the measures, the processes
resources, and accounting are
are compared to similar situations
not evaluated on the opinion of
elsewhere. Learning from others
their professional leaders; rather,
is a way to speed improvement
they are evaluated by performance
and reduce its risks. SSMHC
measures.
(2002) has “collaboratives,” and
2. Support a service line structure that CHI has “affinity groups” of
organizes accountability around managers that perform similar
groups of patients with similar jobs across their systems (Griffith
needs, rather than the traditional and White 2003). SSMHC, CHI,
functional silos. The service lines and IHC participate in Institute for
integrate inpatient and outpatient Healthcare Improvement programs
activity. to share best practices (IHC 2004).
3. Pursue all important opportunities. 7. Train improvement team leaders.
The leaders have the capability to Team leaders get “meeting in a
support many teams simultane- box” tools, analytic skills, money
ously. They have no sacred cows, to travel to comparison sites, and
where history or authority protects funds for experimentation.
a process from review.
8. Monitor improvement teams
4. Decision of whether performance closely. Timetables and interim
is “good” or “not good enough” is goals are set. Rigorous analysis is
based on comparison to goal. Any expected. Constructive advice on
measure, from the post infarction complex situations and conflict
mortality rate to days of accounts resolution assistance is available
receivable, is “good” if it achieves a from senior management.
previously negotiated goal. The goal
is often moved forward each year, O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L
based on benchmark or, in some P E R F O R M A N C E R E S U LT S
cases such as incorrect surgical According to the 2004 Health Care
sites or medication errors, on zero Criteria, this criterion refers to
defects. “performance and improvement. . . .
5. Listen extensively to supplement relative to those of competitors and
the measures. Qualitative other organizations providing similar
information from customers, health care services.”
187
The measurement focus of leading their quality journeys before 1990, BHI
hospitals allows them to document began intensive employee training in
their achievements, which, in turn, 1997 and CHI achieved success in just
has led to a number of awards. The three years. As Sister Mary Jean Ryan
Baldrige winners exceed national (2004), president and CEO of SSMHC,
medians in more than 75 percent of says, “the Baldrige criteria also establish
their reported measures. a path to meet that challenge.” The
first four leadership steps—mission,
DISCUSSION AND measures, prompt reporting, and two-
CONCLUSION way communication—are the right
These institutions’ achievements beginning.
set a new standard for performance Revolutionary change includes
accountability and excellence that we profound shifts in organizational
believe is a revolution in hospital culture. Governance becomes proactive
management. Simply put, they rather than reactive. It turns to
have shown how to run healthcare ongoing cooperation instead of
organizations substantially better negotiated settlements. The concepts
than is typical. Similarly, they have of professional domains—the board’s,
documented the processes that the physicians’, the nurses’—gives
produce excellence. The new norm way to dialog about the cost and
will not be overlooked in boardrooms, quality per case; it is a fundamental
reimbursement negotiations, bond shift in perspective from inputs to
rating agencies, accrediting reviews, outputs, from tradition to results,
and courts. Just as medicine now from static to dynamic. Management
follows guidelines for care; successful is now dually accountable—upwards
managers will use evidence and for results, downwards for supporting
carefully developed processes to guide and training associates and teams.
their decisionmaking. Healthcare The approach is firmly grounded in
systems and hospitals that copy learning and rewards; it is not punitive
these processes can expect to do or coercive. Collaboration has become
well. Their stakeholders—patients, the key word at all levels. Teams
trustees, physicians, nurses, payers—will collaborate to improve care, support
be pleased. As word spreads, other units collaborate to meet caregiver
stakeholders will demand no less. needs, and the organization as a whole
Professional excellence for hospital collaborates with stakeholders to
management will become the ability further mutual aims.
to use these processes and match
or exceed these numbers. Hospital References
managers, across the nation and at all Baptist Hospital, Inc. 2003. Baldrige Award
levels, face a substantial challenge. Application. Pensacola, FL: BHI.
Bohmer, R., A. C. Edmondson, and L. R.
The evidence suggests that the
Feldman. 2003. “Intermountain Health
challenge can be met in only a few Care.” HBS Case9-603-066. Cambridge,
years. Although IHC and SSMHC began MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
188
Photocopying and distribution of this PDF is prohibited without
the permission of Health Administration Press. For permission,
please fax your request to 312.424.0014.
The Revolution in Hospital Management
Catholic Health Association. 2001. Community Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2004.
Benefit Program. St. Louis MO: CHA. Also [Online information; retrieved 6/30/04.]
see http://www.chausa.org/RESOURCE http://www.qualityhealthcare.org/IHI
/COMMBENEFITPROGPROMO.ASP. /Topics/Improvement/ImprovementMethods
Dominican Hospital. 2003. Baldrige Award /Literature/LessonsfromtheBaldrigeWinnersin
Application. Santa Cruz, CA: Dominican HealthCare.htm.
Hospital. Malcolm Baldrige Health Care Criteria for
Friedman, P. 2004. Personal interview, Sep- Performance Excellence. 2004. [On-
tember 3. line information; retrieved 2/27/04.]
Griffith, J. R. 1998. Designing 21st Century http://baldrige.nist.gov/HealthCare
Healthcare. Chicago: Health Administra- Criteria.htm.
tion Press. Ryan, M. J. 2004. “Achieving and Sustaining
Griffith, J. R., V. K. Sahney, and R. A. Mohr. Quality in Healthcare.” Frontiers of Health
1995. Reengineering Healthcare. Chicago: Services Management 20 (3): 3–11.
Health Administration Press. Simons, R. 2000. Performance Measurement and
Griffith, J. R., and K. R. White. 2002. The Well- Control Systems for Implementing Strategy.
Managed Healthcare Organization, 5th Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
edition. Chicago: Health Administration SSM Health Care System. 2002. Baldrige
Press. Award Application. St. Louis, MO:
. 2003. Thinking Forward: Six Strategies SSMHC.
for Highly Successful Organizations. Chi- St. Luke’s Hospital. 2003. Baldrige Award
cago: Health Administration Press. Application. Kansas City, MO: SLH.
Heskett, J., W. E. Sasser, and L. Schlesinger.
1997. The Service Profit Chain. New York:
The Free Press.
P R A C T I T I O N E R A P P L I C A T I O N
David L. Bernd, FACHE, chief executive officer, Sentara Healthcare, Norfolk, Virginia
W ith one-third of the nation’s hospitals running in the red and another third
breaking even, the need for a model of healthcare management cannot be
more imminent. This article provides an insightful glimpse into the practices of
some of the nation’s best health systems and begins to answer the need for a stan-
dard management approach through which organizations can achieve excellence.
By operationalizing the Baldrige Criteria and using process-based decisionmaking,
the systems described in this article have achieved superior quality in operations
and excellence in relationship management.
An emphasis on the Baldrige criteria, however, will not forge excellence in and
of itself. The Baldrige winners described here and other organizations that strive
to emulate them must undertake a simultaneous culture shift—one that embraces
quality as a differentiator and a key to long-term success. The acceptance of these
principles will prove useful for the practitioner in several ways.
The Baldrige approach to management does not create a cumbersome new
bureaucracy as a means for achieving results. This initiative is successful because
189
quality roots itself within and throughout an organization. The choice of adoption
and belief that quality will make a difference in care delivery are large components
of achieving excellence.
The Baldrige model provides intangible principles through which management
can lead and derive operational goals. More important, however, are the tangible
experiences of the systems that have implemented the Baldrige model and have
incorporated quality into their raison d’être. Organizations that strive for similar
recognition and results can learn from the mistakes of past Baldrige winners.
The establishment of a common ground for comparison is another advantage
for organizations that implement the Baldrige approach to quality and manage-
ment. The accomplishments of organizations that live by these principles provide a
standard against which the industry can measure performance. The implications of
standardization reach beyond internal system boundaries and extend out into the
community, providing a language for collaboration across systems and improved
health information for consumers.
Most importantly, this article is a guide, demonstrating how some of the most
successful systems have achieved results. Healthcare institutions do not have to
reinvent the wheel; instead, they can look to these exemplary organizations to
learn how to focus resources into a formula that will result in operational excel-
lence. Change is both realistic and realizable, and it does not take a lifetime or
enormous capital investment to create a culture of quality.
The authors assert that “The institutions’ achievements set a new standard
for performance accountability and excellence that we believe is a revolution in
hospital management.” I challenge that proclamation, arguing that while a rev-
olutionary groundwork has been laid, the true revolution will occur when many
more hospital executives guide their organizations using a commitment to quality
and the Baldrige criteria as a foundation. In turn, these hospitals and health sys-
tems will exceed the standards of today and become the models for operational
excellence of the future. In the words of Dr. Joseph Juran, “We are headed into the
next century which will focus on quality . . . we are leaving one that has focused on
productivity.”
190