Errors and Fallacies in Healthcare Productivity Measurements

Health care organization such as Skilled Nursing Facilities, and Rehab Facilities often establish productivity measurements for their professional services staff.  Performance objectives are at a high level, simply the product of minutes billed divided by minutes worked; but what happens when the math is wrong?

One facility I just reviewed showed the following example in their Policy Manual for Productivity Calculations for determining minutes worked, i.e. the denominator:

Example: “Therapist works 8:00 A.M to 12:00 P.M. in Facility A = 240 minutes (4 hours)”

Do you see the error already?  Think about it a minute, what’s missing?

Where is the accounting for ten minute break required by law?  This facility makes no adjustment for required breaks, there by overstating the denominator and lowering percent productivity in their performance equation.  Double this error for a standard 8 hour day, and you’re off by 20 minutes, and that’s just the beginning.  Failing to remove breaks alone from hours work will result in understating productivity by approximately 4.3%.

Still there is another thing that is missing, (though stated in this institutions policy, it was never reflected in the productivity calculation) that being Administrative Duties.  Administrative duties are actions that need to be done, that can not be attached to any specific patient or care of patients. To test for Administrative Duties, as yourself: “is my license required to perform this duty?”, if the answer is no, it’s very like an administrative task and should not be reflected in the calculation of one’s productivity.

Removing breaks and administrative duties from hours worked can easily result in understating productivity by over 10%.

Each work day, for example, begins with some process around assignments, establishing what needs to be done and perhaps in what optimal order. Though establishing treatment plans for the day may require a license to do well, printing out the list of assignments or having it immediately available every morning, is not a task requiring a license.

Administrative duties come up all throughout the day and included but not limited to: photocopying, filing, fetching results, verifying orders, as well as appropriate facility specific process documentations, and many more.  Having visited hundreds of facilities in my career, the most efficient had approximately 27 minutes of daily administrative duties.  If there are organizations with less than 27 minutes of daily administrative activities per therapeutic role, I would be delighted to know.

So what do you need to know.

That which is referred to as “Productivity” is actually “Revenue Productivity”, this is because the numerator is minutes billed.  If, for an example for the Speech Therapist, a clinical productivity number might be the number of aspiration pneumonia patients per 100 patients treated.  In this case the most productive would be the SLP with the smallest  percent of patients with right lower lobe aspiration pneumonia.  Of course, one would have to consider the possible over-ordering of swallowing studies, but that is beyond the purpose of this piece.

Each facility needs to agree upon a proper number of minutes to attach to Administrative Duties, by clinical discipline, and then include that in the calculations.  The best way to do this is to engage a consultant to perform an Activity Based Costing methodology to discovering the true number of minutes attached to administrative tasks.  Because of the “ask a fish to describe his environment, the last thing he’ll tell you about is the water” effect, processes tend to disappear because of the “that’s the way we’ve always done it” phoneme. People too familiar with the internal processes of an organization cease to see all that is truly going on.

Finally, do your own math.  For your convenience, I built a simple little spreadsheet (Excel 2007 version, back rev’d to 2003) for you to check out.

Share

Saving Time

Last week’s roll out of Google Instant search is an amazing testimony of small improvements in efficiency producing astounding results. With these seemingly modest, yet profound improvements to searching for information, Google suggests that they can save 11 hours of world wide time for every second; how amazing is that.

It’s important at this time to review the purpose of information which is to improve the efficiency of achieving outcomes.  Information also has four necessary characteristics, it must be accurate, relevant, timely and trustworthy and all must be present; three out of four is just noise.

Timely is an exceptionally relevant piece.  Lying at the beach one day reading, a lifeguard came up to warn us about the incoming tide, just about 3 seconds after the last wave overcame my beach towel, banana and book.  Accurate,yes; relevant and trustworthy, certainly; timely – well not so much.

Anyway, clearly a significant improvement that will soon become normative and disappear and simply the way things are.  Still for the moment, it’s worthy of some reflection as to how astounding this really is.

Share

Where the money is.

According to a press release by ADVAMED (Advanced Medical Technology Association) over $380,000 was spend on lobbying efforts in Q2 alone.  You might think this a large amount, yet it pales in comparison to GE who spend $7 million and of all things Pacific Gas and Electric the California-based utility company spent $15 million for all levels, municipal through federal government. Pfizer alone spent $2.25 million in Q2

Sounds like what it is a great deal of money, yet money likely well spent. The Government has chosen to make itself an integral part of private business, hence this is what one gets when that’s the case.  Companies are smart and the compete according to the rules provided them, somewhere along the way the rules to lobby have evolved, and here we are. So in some sense, the marketplace is working.  There is a market for influencing people who have power they would otherwise have to work to acquire in the private sector, and they need some information only industries can provide.

If this is unsavory, understand that this is learned behavior, and we’ve been doing the teaching.

Share

Credentialing Survey Launched

I just sent off requests for input on a survey regarding certifications for registered nurses, the results of which will be shown here and in a subsequent article.  The purpose behind this survey is to try to understand the implications of certifications and perhaps track the value these certifications provide healthcare service organizations and perhaps patients.

This initial survey is preliminary with the hope that it will provide me with some direction in which I may be able to dig deeper.  Anyway, I’m hoping for lots of responses.

Share

Credentialing in Healthcare

Following my curiosities in regard to credentialing in healthcare, and nursing in particular, I discovered that there are now over 180 different kinds of credentials.  So what’s this all about?  In one case, I took an example credentialing test for nurses in IT (an area in which I have considerable expertise) and was amazed by how silly the questions were, and how little utility would result from getting them correct.

Is there something about our collective self-esteem that leads us to all these external validation awards?  I’m not saying that we’re worse off for these certifications, I’m just not certain we’re any better off either.  What I can say is that it is a large and highly profitable industry.  Why there is even a credentialing body to credential those organizations who credential nurses.

So tell me, what’s the story here?

Share