Building the Infrastructure for Value at UCLA: Engaging Clinicians and Developing Patient-Centric Measurement.

PROBLEM: Evolving payer and patient expectations have challenged academic health centers (AHCs) to improve the value of clinical care. Traditional quality approaches may be unable to meet this challenge. APPROACH: One AHC, UCLA Health, has implemented a systematic approach to delivery system redesign that emphasizes clinician engagement, a patient-centric scope, and condition-specific, clinician-guided measurement. A physician champion serves as quality officer (QO) for each clinical department/division. Each QO, with support from a central measurement team, has developed customized analytics that use clinical data to define targeted populations and measure care across the full treatment episode. OUTCOMES: From October 2012 through June 2015, the approach developed rapidly. Forty-three QOs are actively redesigning care delivery protocols within their specialties, and 95% of the departments/divisions have received a customized measure report for at least one patient population. As an example of how these analytics promote systematic redesign, the authors discuss how Department of Urology physicians have used these new measures, first, to better understand the relationship between clinical practice and outcomes for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and, then, to work toward reducing unwarranted variation. Physicians have received these efforts positively. Early outcome data are encouraging. NEXT STEPS: This infrastructure of engaged physicians and targeted measurement is being used to implement systematic care redesign that reliably achieves outcomes that are meaningful to patients and clinicians-incorporating both clinical and cost considerations. QOs are using an approach, for multiple newly launched projects, to identify, test, and implement value-oriented interventions tailored to specific patient populations.

The one-stop clinic as the standard of out-patient care in a hospital urology department.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a 'one-stop' clinic in terms of proportion of discharges or inclusion in surgical waiting lists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were referred from primary care facilities (population 220,646) and from different departments in the hospital. Eight senior urologists, two registered nurses and two nurse attendants participated in the experience. Prior to the start of the project, referral protocols had been agreed with the primary care physicians involved. Compliance with the protocols was periodically tested. Eventually 5537 first visits (January-December 2009) where evaluable. RESULTS: Overall, the 'one-stop' format proved feasible in 74.2% of the patients (4108/5537). Patients, who successfully used the 'one-stop' format, were significantly younger than those who required additional consultations (43 vs 50 years old, respectively, Student 's t test < 0.001). For obvious reasons the 'one-stop' format was universally possible in male sterilization and penile phimosis patients. Similarly, the 'one-stop' policy was applied in most consultations due to male sexual dysfunction (75%) and urinary tract infection (73%). Other health problems, such as haematuria (62%) and renal colic (46%), required more than one visit so that care of the patient reverted to the traditional, outpatient care model. CONCLUSION: A 'one-stop' philosophy is feasible for a number of procedures in a urological outpatient clinic. The costs to implement such an approach would be limited to managerial expenditure.

The one-stop clinic as the standard of out-patient care in a hospital urology department

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a 'one-stop' clinic in terms of proportion of discharges or inclusion in surgical waiting lists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were referred from primary care facilities (population 220.646) and from different departments in the hospital. Eight senior urologists, two registered nurses and two nurse attendants participated in the experience. Prior to the start of the project, referral protocols had been agreed with the primary care physicians involved. Compliance with the protocols was periodically tested. Eventually 5537 first visits (January-December 2009) where evaluable. RESULTS: Overall, the 'one-stop' format proved feasible in 74.2 percent of the patients (4108/5537). Patients, who successfully used the 'one-stop' format, were significantly younger than those who required additional consultations (43 vs 50 years old, respectively, Student's t test < 0.001). For obvious reasons the 'one-stop' format was universally possible in male sterilization and penile phimosis patients. Similarly, the 'one-stop' policy was applied in most consultations due to male sexual dysfunction (75 percent) and urinary tract infection (73 percent). Other health problems, such as haematuria (62 percent) and renal colic (46 percent), required more than one visit so that care of the patient reverted to the traditional, outpatient care model. CONCLUSION: A 'one-stop' philosophy is feasible for a number of procedures in a urological outpatient clinic. The costs to implement such an approach would be limited to managerial expenditure.

Assessing the feasibility of a one-stop approach to diagnosis for urological patients.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional publicly funded out-patient services in many specialties are characterised by delays, fragmented diagnostic processes, and overloaded clinics. This is bad for patients as it is clinically dangerous; bad for managers who spend hours managing the failure; bad for doctors who respond by overloading clinics; and bad for purchasers who have to fund the multiple out-patient visits needed. Sound clinical and financial reasons exist for introducing more efficient diagnostic processes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 330 consecutive patients referred to the urology department of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust were invited to attend one of nine one-stop clinics staffed by consultant urologists with specialist registrars, nurses, and clerical staff. Pre-clinic blood and urine tests were ordered based on the referral letter. Clinics had facilities to perform cystoscopy, ultrasound, and urinary flow studies. Correspondence was generated in real time, and a copy given to the patient. RESULTS: Overall, 257 patients attended the clinics. Twenty-three patients cancelled appointments and 50 patients did not attend. Pre-clinic tests were requested in 133 patients and were completed by 86% of the patients who attended. Of patients, 42% were diagnosed and discharged; 28% were listed for surgery, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), or referred to another specialty. About 30% of patients needed further out-patient review; in approximately two-thirds to complete a diagnosis and one-third to review the results of therapy initiated. An estimated 350 appointments and 550 patient visits to hospital were saved. CONCLUSIONS: A one-stop method of consultation is efficient across a range of urological presenting complaints, and dramatically reduces the need for follow-up consultations. It has potential to: (i) reduce delays to being seen in out-patients; (ii) lead to more cost-effective care; and (iii) increase safety and patient satisfaction. It should become the standard of care in urology, and is probably applicable in many other disciplines.

Ultrasound in urological emergency: results of self audit and implications for training.

The efficacy of ultrasound examination by the trainee urologists in the management of urological emergencies admitted in a district general hospital was studied. Fifty patients (100 kidney units) had renal ultrasound performed by urological trainees on acute admission. The results were compared with subsequent definitive radiological investigations. On analysis of 100 renal units there were 7 discordant results, 2 false negatives and 5 false positives achieving 97% specificity (95% confidence interval 93% to 100%) and 84% sensitivity (95% confidence interval 71% to 97%). Adopting 50-patient analysis there was 89% specificity (95% confidence interval 74% to 100%) and 84% sensitivity (95% confidence interval 71% to 97%). These intervals indicate the levels of success to be expected in future studies. The study shows that urological trainees can use ultrasound with high levels of accuracy improving patient management.