PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9192578

Benchmarking, benchmarks, or best practices? Applying quality improvement principles to decrease surgical turnaround time.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The processes of benchmarking, benchmark data comparative analysis, and study of best practices are distinctly different. The study of best practices is explained with an example based on the Arthur Andersen & Co. 1992 "Study of Best Practices in Ambulatory Surgery". METHODS: The results of a national best practices study in ambulatory surgery were used to provide our quality improvement team with the goal of improving the turnaround time between surgical cases. The team used a seven-step quality improvement problem-solving process to improve the surgical turnaround time. RESULTS: The national benchmark for turnaround times between surgical cases in 1992 was 13.5 minutes. The initial turnaround time at St. Joseph's Medical Center was 19.9 minutes. After the team implemented solutions, the time was reduced to an average of 16.3 minutes, an 18% improvement. Cost-benefit analysis showed a potential enhanced revenue of approximately $300,000, or a potential savings of $10,119. CONCLUSIONS: Applying quality improvement principles to benchmarking, benchmarks, or best practices can improve process performance. Understanding which form of benchmarking the institution wishes to embark on will help focus a team and use appropriate resources. Communicating with professional organizations that have experience in benchmarking will save time and money and help achieve the desired results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Mitchell. Benchmarking, benchmarks, or best practices? Applying quality improvement principles to decrease surgical turnaround time.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9192578/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The role of gait analysis in the orthopaedic management of ambulatory cerebral palsy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The literature was reviewed to describe the role of gait analysis in the orthopaedic management of ambulatory children with cerebral palsy and examine the current best evidence to support these roles. RECENT FINDINGS: Gait laboratory analysis is superior to visual or observational analysis of gait because it provides an objective record of gait that is able to quantify the magnitude of deviations of pathologic gait from normal and also explain these abnormalities. Recognizable gait patterns can be classified and used for making treatment decisions, the effectiveness of which can be assessed using gait analysis as a measure of gait outcomes. There are many sources of variability, however, including patients themselves, the gait laboratories and testing processes, interpretation of data and surgeons' surgical recommendations. SUMMARY: Although gait analysis has been shown to alter decision making, there is little evidence that the decisions based on gait analysis lead to better outcomes. Consequently, clinical gait analysis remains controversial, with wide variation in the rates of utilization of gait analysis in the management of children with ambulatory cerebral palsy. The time is ripe for clinical trials and cohort studies to provide the evidence to establish the appropriate utilization of this technology.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗