S1485 Increasing Inpatient Endoscopy Volumes Using the Model for Continuous Improvement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Inpatient endoscopy volumes can affect patient care at many levels in a hospital system. At our academic center, inpatient procedural volume efficiency is 65% (defined as the number of completed procedures compared during the designated in-patient endoscopy time period). As a consequence, excess procedures are being completed on-call or on weekends. Our aim was to increase procedural volume by one (14%) additional procedure completed/day over a 12-month period. Methods: An interprofessional team of Gastroenterology fellows and staff along with endoscopy nurses and managers was created to investigate throughput concerns. Baseline data was collected via direct observation and completion of a time study over 2 months. Subsequently, a process flow diagram was completed. A combination of root cause analysis tools (ie, Ishikawa diagram and Pareto chart) were then utilized to identify areas for improvement. A delay in procedural start time was identified as a strong culprit for reduced efficiency. Potential PDSA (plan-do-study-act) cycles included: early physician handover start time, constructing a standardized patient procedure list, and improving timeliness of patient transfer to the endoscopy suite. Results: Baseline data identified that the first case start time was delayed by 51 min when our actual start time is 08:00 am. Our first PDSA cycle involved a 15-minute earlier physician handover start time. PDSA cycle #1 reduced our mean procedural start time to 08:49 am [UCL: 104 minutes; LCL: −5.4 minutes]. Our second PDSA cycle, involved the standardization of a planned procedural list and mandate for the first procedure to be esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). PDSA cycle #2 reduced start time reduced to 08:29 am [UCL: 69.6 minutes; LCL: −12.4 minutes]. Our third PDSA cycle, involved utilizing the standardized procedural list to pre-emptively organize timely patient transfer to account for delays secondary to hospital portering services, which reduced the mean start time further to 08:22 am [UCL: 52.0 minutes; LCL: −8.0 minutes] (Figure 1). Conclusion: Using the model for continuous improvement we were able to increase procedural volumes by one (14%) per day. The most effective intervention included developing a standardized procedure list and mandating the first case as an EGD minimizing delays due to inadequate or incomplete bowel preparation.Figure 1.: A statistical process control chart (SPC) demonstrating baseline data on endoscopy procedural start time and interventions (PDSA #1, PDSA #2, PDSA #3) that were effective in reducing the delay in procedure start time and resulted in a subsequent increase in endoscopy unit efficiency.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».