Improving healthcare value through clinical community and supply chain collaboration.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that integrating supply chain with clinical communities would allow for clinician-led supply cost reduction and improved value in an academic health system. METHODS: Three clinical communities (spine, joint, blood management) and one clinical community-like physician led team of surgeon stakeholders partnered with the supply chain team on specific supply cost initiatives. The teams reviewed their specific utilization and cost data, and the physicians led consensus-building conversations over a series of team meetings to agree to standard supply utilization. RESULTS: The spine and joint clinical communities each agreed upon a vendor capping model that led to cost savings of $3 million dollars and $1.5 million dollars respectively. The blood management decreased blood product utilization and achieved $1.2 million dollars savings. $5.6 million dollars in savings was achieved by a clinical community-like group of surgeon stakeholders through standardization of sutures and endomechanicals. CONCLUSIONS: Physician led clinical teams empowered to lead change achieved substantial supply chain cost savings in an academic health system. The model of combining clinical communities with supply chain offers hope for an effective, practical, and scalable approach to improving value and engaging physicians in other academic health systems. IMPLICATIONS: This clinician led model could benefit both private and academic health systems engaging in value optimization efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

A Gap Analysis Needs Assessment Tool to Drive a Care Delivery and Research Agenda for Integration of Care and Sharing of Best Practices Across a Health System.

BACKGROUND: In a complex health system, it is important to establish a systematic and data-driven approach to identifying needs. The Diabetes Clinical Community (DCC) of Johns Hopkins Medicine's Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality developed a gap analysis tool and process to establish the system's current state of inpatient diabetes care. METHODS: The collectively developed tool assessed the following areas: program infrastructure; protocols, policies, and order sets; patient and health care professional education; and automated data access. For the purposes of this analysis, gaps were defined as those instances in which local resources, infrastructure, or processes demonstrated a variance against the current national evidence base or institutionally defined best practices. RESULTS: Following the gap analysis, members of the DCC, in collaboration with health system leadership, met to identify priority areas in order to integrate and synergize diabetes care resources and efforts to enhance quality and reduce disparities in care across the system. Key gaps in care identified included lack of standardized glucose management policies, lack of standardized training of health care professionals in inpatient diabetes management, and lack of access to automated data collection and analysis. These results were used to gain resources to support collaborative diabetes health system initiatives and to successfully obtain federal research funding to develop and pilot a pragmatic diabetes educational intervention. CONCLUSION: At a health system level, the summary format of this gap analysis tool is an effective method to clearly identify disparities in care to focus efforts and resources to improve care delivery.

Clinical Communities at Johns Hopkins Medicine: An Emerging Approach to Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Clinical communities are an emerging approach to quality improvement (QI) to which several large-scale projects have attributed some success. In 2011 the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality established clinical communities as a core strategy to connect frontline providers from six different hospitals to improve quality of care, patient safety, and value across the health system. CLINICAL COMMUNITIES: Fourteen clinical communities that presented great opportunity for improvement were established. A community could focus on a clinical area, a patient population, a group, a process, a safety-related issue, or nearly any health care issue. The collaborative spirit of the communities embraced interdisciplinary membership and representation from each hospital in each community. Communities engaged in team-building activities and facilitated discussions, met monthly, and were encouraged to meet in person to develop relationships and build trust. After a community was established, patients and families were invited to join and share their perspectives and experiences. ENABLING STRUCTURES: The clinical community structure provided clinicians access to resources, such as technical experts and safety and QI researchers, that were not easily otherwise accessible or available. Communities convened clinicians from each hospital to consider safety problems and their resolution and share learning with workplace peers and local unit safety teams. CONCLUSION: The clinical communities engaged 195 clinicians from across the health system in QI projects and peer learning. Challenges included limited financial support and time for clinicians, timely access to data, limited resources from the health system, and not enough time with improvement experts.