The Christa Santa Rosa Healthcare System is starting a 5/30 ER initiative: 5 min to see a nurse, 30 min to see a physician. What do you think about this, is this a feasible option for the MHS?
Here is my real comment - I believe that Christa Santa Rosa is selecting this method for its ER is to compete with the standalone ER in a box that is on each corner.
I have had very positive encounters at the BAMC Emergency Department. My family members were seen by a nurse within 5 to 10 minutes and seen by the doctor within 30 to 40 minutes. I believe that we are meeting these standards. Maybe putting it in writing it would make it "real" for the staff. I think we can bring this model to each MTF with an Emergency Department. I think we will need to look at the staffing levels to make sure we have enough people to staff this model.
This question stemmed from a story I caught on the local news. It sounded so good to be true, I was waiting for an infommercial announcer to say, "wait, there's more!" I really hoped they were going to throw in a blender with your treatment.. I kid of course, but I was intrigued. I went to their website and as it's posted, the claim is that your treatment will begin within 5 minutes, and you would see a physician within 30. That's all it says, no further explanation. Enter Marketing flashback. Well, aren't they clever? If they additionally staff their reception desk with a triage nurse, they have made good on the first part of their promise -treatment begins within five minutes. Alternatively, (as Dr. Richter mentioned recently) if after sign in, the patient's vitals are taken, the patient feels that the process has started and is happier waiting, kind of like the long lines at Disneyland. The second part of the promise is saying a physician within 30 minutes, this could go along the same lines. Seeing and treating are two different approaches. I don't know if this is what they are doing, but their choices of words are interesting. Finding a way to efficiently move patients through an ER takes some serious work. It involves patient activation and education to teach them the difference between emergent and primary care. Teaching alone is not enough. Access and quality play an important role as well. Patients who can get to their PCMs, or get their needs met (telehealth, triage phone systems, relay messaging for appointmaking, standard test results, prescription refills) in a timely manner, are less likely to clog up the ED. Is this a possibility for the MHS? Absolutely. Should it be used as a measuring tool? I'm not so sure, because it does not answer the question of 'are we improving the population's health?' In- house, I would much rather measure the quantity and types of cases coming into the ER. It does, however, make for a reasonable means to tip patient satisfaction and patient trust in our favor.
Here is my real comment - I believe that Christa Santa Rosa is selecting this method for its ER is to compete with the standalone ER in a box that is on each corner.
ReplyDeleteI have had very positive encounters at the BAMC Emergency Department. My family members were seen by a nurse within 5 to 10 minutes and seen by the doctor within 30 to 40 minutes. I believe that we are meeting these standards. Maybe putting it in writing it would make it "real" for the staff. I think we can bring this model to each MTF with an Emergency Department. I think we will need to look at the staffing levels to make sure we have enough people to staff this model.
This question stemmed from a story I caught on the local news. It sounded so good to be true, I was waiting for an infommercial announcer to say, "wait, there's more!" I really hoped they were going to throw in a blender with your treatment.. I kid of course, but I was intrigued. I went to their website and as it's posted, the claim is that your treatment will begin within 5 minutes, and you would see a physician within 30. That's all it says, no further explanation.
ReplyDeleteEnter Marketing flashback. Well, aren't they clever? If they additionally staff their reception desk with a triage nurse, they have made good on the first part of their promise -treatment begins within five minutes. Alternatively, (as Dr. Richter mentioned recently) if after sign in, the patient's vitals are taken, the patient feels that the process has started and is happier waiting, kind of like the long lines at Disneyland. The second part of the promise is saying a physician within 30 minutes, this could go along the same lines. Seeing and treating are two different approaches. I don't know if this is what they are doing, but their choices of words are interesting. Finding a way to efficiently move patients through an ER takes some serious work. It involves patient activation and education to teach them the difference between emergent and primary care. Teaching alone is not enough. Access and quality play an important role as well. Patients who can get to their PCMs, or get their needs met (telehealth, triage phone systems, relay messaging for appointmaking, standard test results, prescription refills) in a timely manner, are less likely to clog up the ED. Is this a possibility for the MHS? Absolutely. Should it be used as a measuring tool? I'm not so sure, because it does not answer the question of 'are we improving the population's health?' In- house, I would much rather measure the quantity and types of cases coming into the ER. It does, however, make for a reasonable means to tip patient satisfaction and patient trust in our favor.