search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
STANDARD PRACTICES


Getting it right the fi rst time: The power of standardization


by Karen Conway, Vice President, Healthcare Value, GHX A


s discussed many times in this column, one of the primary benefits of standardization – be it in process or in products - is the ability to reduce “uncontrolled” variation that can impact quality. When it comes to patient care, there is an added dimension in the pursuit of quality – the reduction of “unwarranted” variation. In this month’s column, we explore a program in the UK that is demonstrating the value of this approach, from both a clinical and financial perspective.


First, let’s explore the differences between uncontrolled and unwarranted variation. Those trained in the Six Sigma meth- odology seek near perfection in the form of no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities (which translates to six stan- dard deviations between the mean and the nearest specifi cation limit). Anything outside those specifi cation limits is considered uncontrolled variation. Within those limits, there will always be some degree of controlled variation, the result of normal causes that will always exist in nature. In the pursuit of quality, the key is to determine if the variation is uncontrolled (the result of special causes) and can and should be addressed. Failure to recognize the difference and misdirected improvement efforts can result in actions that can worsen, not improve, quality. When it comes to patient care, there is a further consideration: whether variation is warranted or unwarranted. Let me explain. In contrast to building a product to certain specifi cations, such as a car, patients are unique. There is still tremendous value in standardizing clinical protocols based on evidence of what works best for specifi c patient populations. But individual patients also present with their own unique anatomical charac- teristics, genetics, lifestyles, even personal opinions as to what they consider to be favorable outcomes. As a result, as we seek to standardize care on what works best, we should also create mechanisms for clinicians to vary care – including the choice of devices or drugs – to meet the unique needs of their patients. A program in the UK – Getting it Right the First Time (GIRFT) – is performing groundbreaking work in this area at the sys- tem level, seeking to reduce variation in how care is delivered across the National Health Service (NHS). The program was started by orthopedic surgeon and professor Tim Briggs, who was provoked by the case of a 73-year-old woman who, after undergoing spine surgery, was unable to raise her head to look forward. He wants to ensure that no patient, let alone someone at her age, has to undergo corrective surgery because it wasn’t done right the fi rst time. GIRFT’s fi rst workstream was in orthopedics, laying the foundation for a methodology now being deployed across 40 medical and surgical specialties in the NHS. By identifying the practices that lead to the best outcomes, GIRFT clinical leaders


seek to standardize those practices in their respective areas of expertise across the NHS. Some of GIRFT’s early groundbreaking work focused on the appropriate use of cemented vs. uncemented orthopedic implants in patients over and above the age of 55. Despite evidence of better outcomes (from a patient satisfaction and clinical perspective) for total hip arthroplasty (THR) patients over 55 with less expensive cemented implants, and no evidence of a difference between cemented and uncemented implants in younger patients, GIRFT identifi ed a substantial increase in the use of uncemented implants for patients of all ages. With an aging population, rising rates of obesity, and nearly 20 percent annual increases in referrals for THR, GIRFT warned of a substantial fi nancial drain on the NHS and recommended standardizing care based on clinical evidence and cost considerations. In its research, GIRFT identifi ed signifi cant variation in prac- tice and outcomes in terms of device and procedure selection, clinical costs, infection rates, readmission rates, and litigation rates. With predictions of lower revision rates with cemented implants (especially for patients over 65), studies estimated the NHS could save £18.5 million within fi ve years, and likely more, if it were to standardize care more on cemented implants. Even taking into account faster surgery times with uncemented implants, research found trusts would not be more profi table even if they doubled the number of procedures with unce- mented devices due to their higher costs.


GIRFT research across numerous medical specialties is gen- erating important research on the value of standardization of care to reduce unwarranted variation. At the same time, researchers also recognize the continued need for warranted variation based on specifi c patient needs. As one study noted: “The use of cemented components in routine primary THR in the NHS as a whole can be justifi ed on a fi nancial level but we recognize individual patient factors must be considered when deciding which components to use.” HPN


References


1. Cost savings of using a cemented total hip replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28717 Published August 2012. Accessed December 7, 2019.


Karen Conway works to advance the role of the supply chain as a critical enabler in the pursuit of a value-based healthcare system. As Vice President, Healthcare Value for Global Healthcare Exchange (GHX), Conway explores how the supply chain and improved data quality and visibility can support understanding of what increases value for patients and to those organizations that develop and deliver healthcare products and services.


50 January 2020 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS • hpnonline.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56