PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9192564

Flow chart to benchmark.

M W Corbett
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is the process used to search for best-in-class, compare results, discover the enablers of superior process performance, and take action to achieve quantum process improvement. It sounds simple, but all too often benchmarking efforts fail. The first obstacle often is failing to understand how work is currently being performed. METHODS: Through linear flow charts, connection charts, and cross-functional flow charts, teams identify each step in a process, see how the people in the process interact, follow the work flow, and label the type of a step. When this is accompanied by supporting documentation, this method provides teams a way to visually see the work flow and know where there are glitches and where things are going well. RESULTS: Through flow charting, benchmarking teams can understand what they are doing so they know what to look for in a benchmarking partner and how to identify the enablers of a superior performance. CONCLUSIONS: Without flow charting, teams will not get the maximum benefit from benchmarking.

Explore related subjects

Appointments and SchedulesAudiovisual AidsHospital-Patient RelationsHumansInterdepartmental RelationsManagement Quality CirclesProblem SolvingProcess Assessment, Health CareSoftware DesignTotal Quality ManagementJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M W Corbett. Flow chart to benchmark.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9192564/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

Case complexity.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Appointments and Schedules↗
PubMed1998

The challenge to restoring basic health care in Uganda.

This paper presents the results of a health facility survey conducted in Uganda between June 1992 and December 1993. The survey covered both government and non-government organisation (NGO) facilities from 10 districts in the five regions of the country. The main objective of the survey was to assess resource use, costs and financing of health facilities. The survey found differences between resource levels of NGOs and government facilities. Government facilities were inadequately maintained, and mostly in a state of disrepair. The user fee scheme that had been recently introduced in some government units to meet running costs was not only inadequate, but was not being used to meet the needs of consumers. In addition, most available resources, including human resources, were concentrated in hospitals. As a result, there was heavy demand for hospital services and less use of services in the lower level facilities. And furthermore, staff in government facilities were paid much less than staff working for NGOs, who not only got better pay but also in-kind forms of rewards, which made them better motivated to work. The number of qualified staff, particularly for primary health care, was grossly inadequate, and most of the work in local facilities was being done by unqualified employees, such as ward maids and dressers. In order to alleviate some of the problems identified, particularly in government facilities, there is a need to explore ways in which more can be done with the available resources to improve the efficiency of health services. The user charge system could be effective in improving the resource base of the health facilities, but it must result in visible improvement in the quality of services for consumers to be willing to pay. Collection methods should be standardised, and expenditures supervised. As part of the government's decentralisation programme, districts should be given the power to recruit and fire personnel. Once this authority is in place, the district should consider employing fewer personnel at all levels and aim to pay them a living wage.

Appointments and Schedules↗