Fix Patient Flow Bottlenecks – Forever

Patient flow seems impossible to fix in most hospitals.

Nearly every step in a patient’s journey can stop flow. Even the most LEAN-ed processes require fanatical vigilance to guarantee patients don’t get stopped as they move through our hospitals.

Eli Goldratt popularized ‘bottleneck’ in his classic ‘The Goal‘ – a long narrative presentation of the Theory of Constraints. A worthy read.

Bottlenecks decrease flow.

They cause havoc by showing up unplanned. In industry, bottlenecks turn up as critical processing steps whose maximum speed determines the maximum speed of a whole production line.

In healthcare, bottlenecks change all the time. In fact, a dozen different things could be the bottleneck – the rate limiting step – over 1 day in the ED. During the morning, it’s lack of staff; during the afternoon, it’s lack of beds. Despite this, most folks like to blame their favourite bottleneck:

“If we only had more beds. If only we didn’t have admitted patients!”

“If only we didn’t have such slow docs!”

“If only we had more nurses (or faster nurses…)!”

“If only we had more space!”

If only…

Picking one bottleneck – usually out of our control – removes responsibility to address all the bottlenecks within our control.

In recent posts, we’ve been talking about closing the waiting room, bringing patients straight into the ED and cycling them from chairs to exam tables. These steps bypass the ‘bed block’ excuse most EDs use for making patients wait for hours in the waiting room. Once patients get ushered straight in, dozens of new bottlenecks show up: nursing shift change, waiting for porters, DI/Lab back-up, not enough MDs, patient reassessment delays…running out of patient gowns…

There’s only one way to guarantee a bottleneck will never slow flow in your ED.

Parallel processing

Like putting together an IKEA cabinet, some things need to be done in order. Sequential processing means doing things one after the other – like a long train of boxcars. However, insisting on sequential processing creates hundreds of potential bottlenecks. Parallel processing unhitches the boxcars and lets them all run on separate tracks at the same time. That way, if any process stops, all the others can continue.

Simple enough…

But, medicine loves process. Many of the sacred cows in emergency medicine are core to sequential processing:

Triage followed by

Secondary Assessment followed by

MD assessments followed by

Lab and DI followed by

Portering…

Reassessments…

Discharge

Most providers fight to keep care in a general order. It’s what they’re used to.

A parallel approach looks like this:

Triage (sorting only…more in another post) followed by

Everything else

Easy, right? It’s not.

If you truly adopt this thinking, you might have MDs assess and discharge a patient before the patient even sees an RN. Or, you might have Lab/DI and discharge planning involved before an MD gets to a patient. This requires huge flexibility for providers who’ve been bound by historical process.

But…but…what happens first?

After triage, everything else gets done ‘as soon as possible’. Whoever can get to the patient first, gets started on their part of the process even if it means they can’t complete it before another provider arrives. Get it done, now! Sequential steps can never be tolerated as an excuse for making patients wait.

What bottlenecks are holding you back? What’s holding you back from adopting a fully parallel approach? Share your thoughts by clicking on ‘leave a reply’ or # replies below.

ED Stretchers Boarding & Flow

Racing a patient through the emergency department on a stretcher makes exciting TV.

But for most EDs, stretchers are the enemy, because stretchers crush patient flow.

Most patients walk into the emerg and walk home – less than 15% get admitted in Canada. There’s no need to force patients to lie on a stretcher unless absolutely necessary.

Patients sit for hours with serious or potentially life-threatening conditions in most waiting rooms. It’s much safer to get them in and examine them on an exam table inside the ED even if it means they have to sit in chairs during investigation and treatment.

Sure, some patients need stretchers for the duration of their ED visit. But for most patients, if they can walk, they can sit. If they can sit, they do not need a stretcher.

Stretchers enable dysfunctional behaviour that makes patients wait.

Stretchers –

1. Attract admitted patients boarding them for days.

2. Act like real estate for ED patients. Providers assign one ‘lot’ for each patient.

3. Make patients immobile even if they walked into the ED.

4. Allow providers to ‘tuck patients in’, rails up, safe and sound.

Exam tables increase flow by –

1. Removing a spot for admitted patients. Exam tables are like OR tables: OR tables are for surgery, not admission.

2. Providing a shared resource for all, not an assignment for one.

3. Getting patients to move, which fosters flow. Exam tables don’t have wheels.

4. Keeping providers moving with patients. Exam tables are unsafe without a provider present. Patients spend minutes on an exam table instead of hours on a stretcher.

Dozens of patients cycle on and off one exam table, whereas one stretcher serves only a few patients per day. If the average patient spends 6 hours in the ED, each stretcher can serve, at most, up to 4 patients per day and usually far less.

If you haven’t done so already, replace as many stretchers as possible with exam tables. If exam tables are only found in the minor treatment area, you don’t have enough!

Like any change in historic process, providers realize how attached they are to stretchers when you start asking them to use exam tables instead. But without building EDs twice the size, we cannot continue insisting that all patients, except the lowest acuity, get seen on stretchers. Staff support exam tables once they see how much flow improves; it’s the best way to get patients seen and treated promptly in today’s over-crowded EDs.

Stretchers ruin patient flow, function as a reservoir and promote dysfunctional behaviours. Get rid of them where ever you can!

Do admitted patients block your ED stretchers? Do all your ED patients currently in stretchers actually need to be in one? Are they blocking flow making other patients wait for care? Why not replace some stretchers with exam tables?

Saving time. Saving Lives

Guest post by Dr. Marko Duic MD

At a recent high-school career-night talk where I was invited to discuss medicine as an option, I asked the 11^th and 12^th grade students why they were possibly considering medicine.

“To save lives” came the unsurprising response. What else would they say?

Later, when I described that my job is not only as an emergency physician but also a department chief—an administrator—they determined that I made less, not more money than I would if I were only an emergency physician, so they asked me why I do it. My answer surprised even me, so I would like to share it.

When the students first told me they wanted to do medicine to “save lives”, I pointed out that we don’t do that in medicine.

Instead, we delay death.

Everyone ends up dying anyway, which would not be the case if we really saved lives. However, by doing our physician work well, we have a chance of giving patients useful time between whatever life-threatening emergency they presented with, and their inevitable later demise.

They asked for an example.

I pointed out that most potentially life-threatening causes of chest pain (MI, PE) are treated with “blood thinners”. But once in a blue moon, and only a few times in the average emergency physician’s career, the parade of usual chest pains for which we give life-prolonging blood thinners, is punctuated by a patient with a very similar but not identical chest pain for which blood thinners could be life-ending: the aortic dissection. It is easy to miss such a patient if one is not paying attention, and if one did miss such a patient, the results could be grim.

So the story I told was of a 48 year old man I had seen six months previously who had had a 55 minute stay in our emergency—including triage, being examined, scanned and transferred to vascular surgery in another hospital. His wife reported that he was discharged a week after surgery, which repaired his dissection that extended from the aortic root to the ileac bifurcation. He was now doing well at home.

Had I saved his life? No, he will die at some point. But maybe he has 10 years until some other grievous atherosclerotic event does end his life.

10 years, 16 useful hours in a day: about 60,000 hours of useful time for this patient, as a result of an excellent team, a great emergency department, and very fast and very careful doctoring.

WOW, the high school students said with admiration. That’s really cool. Or maybe the term was “wicked”.

At my hospital, by engaging the team to come up with a leaner flow process, we cut down the average wait for patients by about two hours. The change was planned for months, then put into place overnight on 6 June 2011. On 5 June, patients waited 4 hours at the 90^th percentile, and on 6 June and thereafter, they waited 2 hours (posted on this site earlier).

Thus every patient (I told them to keep things simple, although the details are messier) saved 2 hours of useful time.

250 patients/day, 500 hours saved per day. 120 days—one quarter—60,000 hours of useful time have been saved.

Administration for physicians is not as dramatic as “saving a life” as a physician, and filled with much recrimination from all kinds of people with aversion to change, even though it’s clearly an improvement for patients. Yet it’s deeply rewarding when one can “save lives” administratively—allow people who could go live in the community to stop wasting their lives in the waiting room.

As a physician, I can “save a life” once in a while. As an administrator, I can save some life for each patient.