TY - JOUR
T1 - Using business process redesign to reduce wait times at a university hospital in the Netherlands
AU - Elkhuizen, Sylvia G.
AU - Burger, Matthe P. M.
AU - Jonkers, Rene E.
AU - Limburg, Martien
AU - Klazinga, Niek
AU - Bakker, Piet J. M.
PY - 2007
Y1 - 2007
N2 - BACKGROUND: Business process redesign (BPR) has been applied to implement more customer-focused and cost-effective care. In 2002, two pilot projects to improve patient care processes for two specific patient groups were conducted at the Academic Medical Center, a 1,000-bed university hospital in Amsterdam. METHODS: The BPR consisted of process analysis, identification of bottlenecks and goals for redesign, selection of interventions, and evaluation of effects. After identifying and selecting interventions with the greatest expected benefits, changes were implemented and effects were evaluated. RESULTS: For gynecologic oncology patients, access time (from telephone call to first visit) was reduced from 14 days to <7 days, and the proportion of patients who completed all diagnostic examinations within 14 days increased from 49% to 83%. For dyspnea patients, access time was reduced to <6 days, and the number of visits was halved. DISCUSSION: Despite the fact that we applied the same approach in these two projects, the interventions turned out to be quite different. Whereas changes in communication and planning were sufficient to eliminate bottlenecks in the gynecologic oncology project, the dyspnea project required a radical redesign of processes. Experience since these projects suggests that process redesign may have only marginal impact when the greatest bottleneck occurs, as was the case for the two BPR projects, at the point of access to central diagnostic facilities
AB - BACKGROUND: Business process redesign (BPR) has been applied to implement more customer-focused and cost-effective care. In 2002, two pilot projects to improve patient care processes for two specific patient groups were conducted at the Academic Medical Center, a 1,000-bed university hospital in Amsterdam. METHODS: The BPR consisted of process analysis, identification of bottlenecks and goals for redesign, selection of interventions, and evaluation of effects. After identifying and selecting interventions with the greatest expected benefits, changes were implemented and effects were evaluated. RESULTS: For gynecologic oncology patients, access time (from telephone call to first visit) was reduced from 14 days to <7 days, and the proportion of patients who completed all diagnostic examinations within 14 days increased from 49% to 83%. For dyspnea patients, access time was reduced to <6 days, and the number of visits was halved. DISCUSSION: Despite the fact that we applied the same approach in these two projects, the interventions turned out to be quite different. Whereas changes in communication and planning were sufficient to eliminate bottlenecks in the gynecologic oncology project, the dyspnea project required a radical redesign of processes. Experience since these projects suggests that process redesign may have only marginal impact when the greatest bottleneck occurs, as was the case for the two BPR projects, at the point of access to central diagnostic facilities
M3 - Article
C2 - 17566543
SN - 1553-7250
VL - 33
SP - 332
EP - 341
JO - Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources
JF - Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources
IS - 6
ER -