Time: the challenge sabotaging Emergency Departments

Time: the real challenge sabotaging Emergency Departments 

5 tips to accelerate ORs through perioperative efficiency

How much are hospitals loosing due to inadequate navigation and  cancellations? 

How much are hospitals loosing due to inadequate care navigation and intra-operative cancellations? 

Evidence-informed health: post COVID-19 lessons

Clinical Pathways at the core of Continuous Medical Education activities

How do retention and motivation affect health outcomes?

Continuing Medical Education (CME): a vehicle for motivation and retention

Continuing Medical Education within hospitals: why?

Continuing Medical Education (CME) within hospitals: why?

Levels of interoperability in healthcare

Edifício Mythos, Av. Dom João II 42
1990-095 Lisboa

Lisbon

Product

Senior Product Manager

Medical

Junior Pathway Specialist

Sales

Account Executive

Sales Development Representative

Delivery

Account Delivery Manager

Account Manager

At UpHill you’re able to work wherever you prefer. Feel free to work fully remote, we have team members all over the world!

Remote

Engineering

Interoperability Engineer

UpHill enables health teams to improve outcomes and streamline care by applying evidence-based knowledge through stepwise clinical pathways.

UpHill Health

Operating departments (OR) are hot spots, accountable for the largest part of hospital costs and production. Specifically, ORs contribute to almost two-thirds of a hospital’s total revenue, but also account for about 40% of their total expenses

, including manpower and operating costs.

 is, therefore, a top priority for providers facing an always growing demand of care services, including surgery.

Back to basics: efficiency is not rocket science

When it comes to the future of surgery, medical technology experts often try to predict what’s to come to get ahead of the latest trends. In the last decade, we’ve seen an explosion of new products in a range of high-tech areas: big data, artificial intelligence and machine learning play an increasingly relevant role in treatment planning, decision-making and best practices adoption, while augmented reality, mixed reality and robotics are pointed as essential technologies that impacting surgical devices.

These fancy concepts can sound overwhelming, far away from reality – and quite expensive –, but there is good news: 

the main driver of efficiency improvement is process improvement

. Perhaps not so fancy, but cost-effective.

Efficiency has been described as the capacity of performing things in a way that leads to cost reduction without affecting quality. Other authors define efficiency as the ability of doing the right things, combining productivity and quality

. In turn, quality of care is understood as “the extent to which health care services provided to individuals and patient populations improve desired health outcomes”, being safe, effective, timely, efficient, equitable, and people centered

For the purpose of this blog post, let’s consider efficiency as the ability to increase capacity and quality, while reducing costs.

Top tips to improve surgical journeys through perioperative efficiency.

1. Implement a surgical pathway and keep single source of truth for each professional to improve visibility and collaboration

Perioperative efficiency starts way before the surgery. Missing patient information preceding the surgery can lead to wrong surgical decisions and time lost. This is particularly relevant in complex diseases with multidisciplinary approaches. 

For example, operating a cancer patient without multidisciplinary agreement on the treatment recommendation may lead to poorer clinical outcomes and, thus, extra medical expenditure.

What’s missing? A plan and one source of truth for all professionals to have a shared understanding of the patient status.

Creating an efficient perioperative journey is much like leading an orchestra. There is a pre-defined pathway to be followed – the music staff – a unique source of truth in real time – the conductor – a lot of intricate moving parts – musical instruments. All of them must be in tune, the rhythm succinct. If one instrument is out of tune or loses the beat, it will throw off the entire performance.

As an orchestra, perioperative journeys bring together multiple specialties and professionals working side by side - surgeons, anesthesiologists, diagnostic technicians, among others. There is a care plan to be followed, detailing sequentially framed activities that must be performed and several decisions to be made, considering the patient condition, comorbidities, exams results, etc. But a one and only, real time updated source of truth is still lacking.

This way all professionals to have a shared understanding of the patient status.

2. Stratify patients to avoid cancellations due to unexpected clinical conditions

, surgery cancellation is the leading cause of operating room inefficiencies

. Specifically, day of surgery (DOS) cancellations represent a significant loss of revenue and waste of resources, increasing the already extensive waiting lists that must accommodate the burden of cancelled operations, and most of them are preventable.

For example, admitting a high-risk patient without proper anesthetic risk stratification (ASA) in the OR will surely lead to the surgery being cancelled.

Around 30% of cancellations happen due to clinical reasons

 that could beneficiate from more accurate perioperative evaluation and stratification, including

Preoperative medical assessment has proven its worth to reduce elective case cancellations. In particular, a significant reduction is found in cancellations for medical reasons

3. Automate repetitive tasks to free surgeons and anesthetists’ time

Keeping up with the orchestra metaphor, there are a lot of activities surrounding a live concert which are not performed by musicians to let them focus on their best talent – playing. Our suggestion is about doing the same in your hospital. 

Learn more about how to choose which activities must be automated

From efficiency improvement perspective, automation is useful within two major scopes:

Automation is revolutionizing many industries, including healthcare, enabling hospitals to outsource and offload their most time-consuming work, help relieve administrative burdens and enable healthcare staff to refocus their energy on patients. Such ability looms large when almost half of physicians across all specialties report feeling burned out

 and nearly 60% outline “too many bureaucratic tasks” as the main cause

. Thinking on surgical departments, statistics show that general surgery residents spend at least 30% of their time using the EHR and anesthetists spend almost 20% of their time on administrative work

4. Empower patients and promote evidence-informed behaviors

Going under surgery can be overwhelming and patient education about surgery, anesthesia, intraoperative care, and postoperative pain treatments in the hope of reducing anxiety, improving compliance with pre-surgery recommendations, and facilitating recovery. This improves surgical outcomes and reduces no-shows.

Back to the orchestra, one cannot expect that “ordinary” people assisting to a particular play for the first time will get deep understanding of the several layers presented on a single artistic expression.  Approaches found to overcome those cultural literacy asymmetries range from simple synopsis to cultural mediation programs that offer public a chance to explore the historical, sociological, and artistic background of a particular performance.

A similar method is required to make sure patients feel comfortable proceeding with their surgeries, reduce no shows or low adherence to the pre-surgery treatment plan, making the surgery unfeasible. Did you know that patients not showing up account for 1 out of 5 cancellations

 report increased anxiety levels  due to a lack of communication and information from the practice staff?

Note: to further insights on the importance of having evidence guiding society behaviors read our blog post 

Build a continuous improvement culture through a lean management system

In the perioperative setting, every minute wasted erodes quality and financial well-being. Using lean methodologies to address these issues can make an enormous difference in quality, efficiency, and productivity.

The Lean method initially studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to improve efficiency by eliminating "non-value added" activities known as waste. In addition, the method was applied in different settings related to clinical process to remove waste, identify inefficiencies, and improve outcomes.

If you are a Hospital Director looking to opportunity cost optimization, or a Clinical Director who needs to reduce hospital waiting times and prevent readmissions or even a Head of Operating Room striving to reduce no shows and surgery cancellation, 

Lengthy waiting lists for elective surgery are a daily struggle for patients and a headache for hospital managers. On one hand, they postpone the expected benefits of treatment, while pain and disability remain; on the other hand, delaying the procedures can have a significant impact on a facility’s financial security. In this article, we’ll be exploring the main causes and consequences of this reality in worldwide healthcare systems.

Before going further, there are some facts that we kindly ask you to keep in mind:

If nothing changes, those figures will keep spreading in the upcoming times with some major details pressing ahead: an expected always growing demand contrasting with the health workers shortage are fostering the perfect storm for healthcare systems.

Well, that’s why recruitment and retention efforts are key - but insufficient – drivers to handle such a complex challenge. New productivity enhancing and patient engagement strategies, linked with optimized processes will differentiate those providers able to increase capacity from those who will keep their patients and staff held hostage of lengthy processes and waiting times.

An unprecedented backlog is leading the way…

Long waiting times for elective (non-urgent) surgery have been a longstanding issue, dating back well before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has had a drastic impact on surgical delays, as providers have been forced to prioritize emergency and critical care cases. This shift in resources has resulted in a significant backlog of non-emergency procedures, including surgeries.

A study published in the British Journal of Surgery makes it explicit: 

28 million elective surgeries worldwide have been cancelled or postponed in 2020

 In the same year, surgery waiting times increased by about two months on average.

… and waiting times are turning the spotlights on hospitals (for bad reasons)

Anyone working in a healthcare facility knows that surgical waiting times are a “everyone’s reality”:

And we could keep listing… It is not unique, but it is crucial to understand the leading causes of surgical waiting times and to implement innovative strategies to mitigate them as soon as possible.

Finding the root causes for lengthy waiting lists in surgery 

The root causes of surgical waiting times can be attributed to a variety of factors. Most commonly, it is due to a lack of resources, such as insufficient staff and equipment, poor coordination between different hospital departments and administrative issues can also contribute to waiting times, as well as the sheer number of patients requiring care.

Starting with human resources. It’s well known that health systems are facing a severe shortage of workers due to two major reasons – retirement and turnover – and the second one has been aggravating with growing rates of healthcare workers burned-out. Guess what: perioperative professionals are included in this challenging scenario.

While a current global shortage of 199,000 surgeons and 87,000 anesthesiologists is already reported,

 USA statistics show that, at the present time, more than half of anesthesiologists are 55 years old or older.

a new wave of physician retirements is imminent

At the same time, the world’s population aged 60 years and older is expected to total 2.1 billion in 2050,

 representing an additional risk factor for multiple chronic diseases. The global demand for cancer surgery is expected to increase from 9.1 million to 13.8 million procedures over the next 20 years, and the surgical workforce will need to increase 47%.

Focusing exclusively this reasoning line, sounds obvious that human and technical resources availability are the number one bottleneck for surgical waiting times, but what about the surgeries that are supposed to happen, block hospital facilities and healthcare professionals’ agendas and are cancelled at the last minute?

Cancellations: the hidden face of surgery waiting times

Let’s put it plain: cancellations cost up to €450 million per year…

Evidence reports highly variable elective day of surgery (DOS) cancellation rates from 5% in Finland

It's easy to understand that if an operating room is expected to be working and it changes unexpectedly, there are heavy efficiency losses and waiting times will not reduce – quit the contrary. What is much more difficult to understand is why it happens due to preventable reasons.

…And around 80% of cancellations are preventable

Besides the lack of resources, such as staff or equipment issues previously mentioned as drivers for waiting times, the reasons why a surgery may be canceled include an unforeseen medical issue, such as a sudden infection or complication; the patient's condition not being suitable for the procedure; or the patient not being able to meet the pre-surgery requirements.

In this regard, recent prospective epidemiological study in NHS hospitals states that clinical reasons are responsible for 33% of historical cancellations and 28% of contemporaneous cancellations.

 This include cancellations due to poor preparation or unexpected deterioration in patient health.

Well, what this means in practice is that around 30% of

 cancellations happen due to clinical reasons that could beneficiate from more accurate risk-stratification 

and/or better coordination between different teams and/or care levels.

Once again, it’s not only about having more resources, but also about changing processes to improve the way things are done and make sure that those people are delivering their best.

Last, but not least, increased anxiety levels, often due to a lack of communication and information from the practice staff, are reported by 50% of patients,

resulting in them postponing or canceling the surgery altogether. All in all, preoperative instructions not being followed, lack of OR availability due to administrative issues, or patients simply not showing up, make up 70%

 of surgery cancellations. And all of them are preventable reasons.

patient engagement and navigation enablers’ strategies

, able to reduce either doubts or wrong behaviors that threaten surgery’s viability, 

have their say when it comes to reduce intra-operative cancellations

, consequently reducing – or at least not rising – surgical waiting times.

If you want to keep on top of efficiency tips to increase your OR capacity, read the next blog post. If you prefer to have a conversation about how to reduce cancellations and surgical waiting times, 

Article co-authored by David Rodrigues and Eduardo Freire Rodrigues

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the practice of 

 (EBM) due to two major reasons: uncertainty due to the lack of evidence available, and the sense of urgency that emerged. How could healthcare agencies take this opportunity to shift from EBM to evidence informed decision-making (EIDM) in health? Which role do clinical standards and real-world evidence play in this shift?

 aim to ensure that every patient receives high quality and adequate care. This is usually achieved through agreed guidelines that support physicians and healthcare workers to improve the 

are the basis of an objective evaluation process that can help healthcare organizations measure, assess, and improve performance, through key performance indicators.

 Considering Archie Cochrane’s distinction between efficiency and efficacy in healthcare, clinical standards take on both purposes: setting the ideal conditions to maximize the beneficial change of a given intervention in the most inexpensive way.

Clinical standards are one of the available instruments to disseminate evidence-based medicine (EBM), which is currently defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients”.

 The two principles that rule EBM sustain that: 

COVID-19: the urgency to find hybrid models for evidence production and translation into clinical standards

Traditional knowledge translation models, understood as “the exchange, synthesis, and effective communication of reliable and relevant research results (…) so that effective interventions are used more widely”,

 typically take many years of research. In a pandemic, which by its very nature develops and evolves rapidly, the great challenge is how to speed up this process, which is not at all compatible with the classical methodologies, not only because of speed but also because of uncertainty.

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, health authorities – used to produce clinical standards based on robust and reliable evidence and methodologies – came across a new reality: evidence production was, at the very beginning, sparse, and, later, massive. However, due to the expedited thirst for information, still presenting wide differences in terms of 

Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our understanding and the use of EBM: the complex systems theory has been recently proposed to reflect epidemics as biosocial events,

 composed of complex and dynamic relationships in the real world which need to be addressed by a variety of methods, going beyond clinical trials, and dealing with information that is systematically more fragile and temporary.

FDA defines real-world evidence (RWE) as data about potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD), such as big data, patient-generated data, data from registries, or electronic health records. RWE advocates state that this approach reflects more accurately what happens outside a controlled research environment. However, Schünemann outlines some risks that should not be neglected:

The future – and already the present – belongs to 

, able to incorporate distinct types of evidence:

 scientific (codified) evidence – both from clinical trial and RWE-, tacit (also known as colloquial evidence, since it often includes opinions, expertise, lessons learned, organizational tradition of policymakers, clinicians, patients, or citizens), global and local evidence. A structured assessment is still required as the basis for EIDM, but it is not enough. Development of living guidelines incorporating RWD/RWE, and data on values, available resources (including digital) and organizational factors are a way forward to face rapidly evolving scientific knowledge and a critical need to ensure compliance.

Reimagining clinical standards’ target: engaging civil society in evidence-based behaviors at post COVID-19

In relation to the people for which clinical standards are suitable, the pandemic caused two different effects. On one hand, healthcare professionals changed their perspective on clinical standards, and on the other hand, new (lay) audiences become aware of clinical standards’ importance.

 in the absence of unambiguous evidence, as reported by Simon Carley, -

“the nature of a pandemic is to push clinicians into a position where they must make decisions that are both time-critical and information light”

 - healthcare professionals changed the lenses through which they look at clinical standards, from a purely economic perspective bounding individual decision-making to a useful tool to approach a new condition surrounded by uncertainty. 

Moreover, COVID-19 demonstrated that these recommendations should overtake the physical frontiers of healthcare providers to guide social behaviors and drive political decisions. Perhaps like no other major event in recent memory, the pandemic has exposed synergies between science and policy, as scientists have played a key role in providing scientific advice to national and local governments on what to do at each moment. Usually in the background, epidemiologists were leading actors throughout the pandemic, since public authorities needed information on a real-time basis to track the incidence evolution, disease severity and health system impact, and the potential effect of interventions – e.g. testing strategies, vaccination rollout, nationwide lockdown, circulation restrictions, occupancy limits in public transport or cultural events.

Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic brought to the fore 

 as a discourse of methods that inform the policy process, advocates a more rigorous, and systematic approach, on the premise that policy decisions should be better informed by available evidence and should include rational analysis. On this matter, a Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges

 led by McMaster University made a wakeup call for decisive action by multiple stakeholders to ensure that evidence is consistently used to address societal challenges.

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that the success of many pandemic-related policies also depended on the public’s compliance with clinical standards. Evidence became a daily discussion matter not only for healthcare professionals but also for the general society. This represents another transformational shift, aligned with Huber et al. definition of health as:

This perspective stresses the traditional doctor-patient relationship and perceives citizens as active agents of change capable of navigating the health system.

Clinical standards should therefore evolve to establish the cornerstones for self-management support interventions, defined as “the care taken by individuals towards their own health and wellbeing: it comprises the actions they take to lead a healthy lifestyle; 

to meet their social, emotional and psychological needs

and has the potential to improve the efficiency of health services by reducing unnecessary primary care or hospital visits.

Clinical standards supporting the shift from evidence-based medicine to evidence-informed decision

Despite the information disorder phenomenon, the rise of “anecdotal medicine”,

 and the challenges imposed on the two distinctive domains of the evidence ecosystem - evidence creation and evidence application - both from a public health perspective and direct clinical care - scientific response to the pandemic has been remarkable. In an article for Nature, Helen Pearson stressed out that:

During health emergencies, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures are high, and irrefutable evidence to support a decision may be lacking, decision-makers must consider the scientific evidence together with other political and social imperatives, such as the need to maintain the national economy, security, education, and the need of individuals to work to meet their daily needs.

 However, as health emergencies are fortunately non-routine events, training for this kind of decision making is usually lacking.

In this regard, the pandemic emphasized the need to switch from evidence-based medicine to 

. That is to say, decisions should be made putting together research evidence with public health expertise, resources, and knowledge about community health issues and local context, to make policy and programming decisions. In other words, policymaking – and not only clinical decisions – is made considering the 

most relevant, high-quality qualitative or quantitative evidence

 available, among other dimensions such as: community health status reports to determine the magnitude of a particular health issue in the local setting, the needs and interests of community members, the current political climate, and the financial and human resources available.

 from people engaged with decision making for the COVID-19 pandemic need to be disseminated as a heritage for future public health emergencies. In this article, we focused on 

clinical standards as a tool to support evidence-informed decision

, which asks for a revision of their development and dissemination process intending to: