TEAM approach reduced wait time, improved “face” time

,; ,; ,

Original Research

TEAM approach reduced wait time, improved “face” time

J Fam Pract. 2018 August;67(8):E1-E8

PDF Download

References

1. Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:753-760.

2. McDonald CJ, Callaghan FM, Weissman A, et al. Use of internist’s free time by ambulatory care electronic medical record systems. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1860-1863.

3. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C, et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:836-848.

4. Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR, et al. Factors affecting physician professional satisfaction and their implications for patient care, health systems, and health policy. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR439.html#key-findings. Accessed October 25, 2016.

5. Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:e100-e106.

6. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2001.

7. Shanafelt TD, Hasan O, Dyrbye LN, et al. Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2015;90:1600-1613.

8. DeMatteo MR, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, et al. Physicians’ characteristics influence patients’ adherence to medical treatment: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Health Psychol. 1993;12:93-102.

9. Shanafelt TD, Bradley KA, Wipf JE, et al. Burnout and self-reported patient care in an internal medicine residency program. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:358-367.

10. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251:995-1000.

11. Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, et al. Is the professional satisfaction of general internists associated with patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:122-128.

12. Linzer M, Poplau S, Grossman E, et al. A cluster randomized trial of interventions to improve work conditions and clinician burnout in primary care: results from the Healthy Work Place (HWP) Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:1105-1011.

13. Ferrer RL, Mody-Bailey P, Jaén CR, et al. A medical assistant-based program to promote healthy behaviors in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:504-512.

14. Sinsky CA, Williard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

15. Reuben DB, Knudsen J, Senelick W, et al. The effect of a physician partner program on physician efficiency and patient satisfaction. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1190-1193.

16. Hopkins K, Sinsky CA. Team-based care: saving time and improving efficiency. Fam Pract Manag. 2014;21:23-29.

17. Yan C, Rose S, Rothberg MB, et al. Physician, scribe, and patient perspectives on clinical scribes in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:990-995.

18. Misra-Hebert AD, Rabovsky A, Yan C, et al. A team-based model of primary care delivery and physician-patient interaction. Am J Med. 2015;128:1025-1028.

19. Anderson RJ. Optimizing the role of nursing staff to enhance physician productivity: one physician’s journey. Fam Pract Manag. 2013;20:18-22.

20. Anderson P, Halley MD. A new approach to making your doctor-nurse team more productive. Fam Pract Manag. 2008:15:35-40.

21. Sinsky CA. Dissatisfaction among Wisconsin physicians is part of a serious national trend. Wis Med J. 2015;114:132-133.

22. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:573-576.

METHODS

We selected 2 WRMC sites for TEAM re-engineering based on their experience with quality-improvement projects and perceived likelihood of success with a new transformation initiative. In early 2013, WRMC charged one physician (JM), 2 MAs, the clinic scheduler, and the clinic administrator with designing the details of the model including evaluation metrics. WRMC provided a .5 FTE process engineer (MS) to assist with the design and implementation of the model at no extra expense to the clinics. The model was implemented in late 2013 and into 2014 after regular TEAM planning meetings and observational visits to non-WRMC sites identified as examples of best practices in improving outpatient primary care patient satisfaction: Bellin Health (Green Bay, Wis); ThedaCare (Appleton, Wis); the University of Utah (Salt Lake City); and the University of Wisconsin Health Yahara Clinic (Madison, Wis).

TEAM model

The TEAM model—so named to create top-of-mind awareness of its benefits—increased the MA:MD ratio, maintained consistent team composition so that physician/MA teams learned to work together and become more efficient, and added new MA responsibilities. We trained MAs to assist with documentation in the exam room to ensure that physician time was spent in face-to-face direct patient care.^14-20 In these ways, we sought not only to increase patient satisfaction but also to enhance our own “joy in practice,” defined primarily by a high level of work-life satisfaction, a low level of burnout, and a feeling that the medical practice is fulfilling.²¹

In our traditional model, an MA retrieved the patient from the waiting room, conducted initial assessment in the exam room, and then left the patient to wait for the physician to enter. Once the physician entered and conducted the exam, the patient would be left alone again to wait for the MA to return. In our revised model (TABLE 1), we assigned one MA to each patient from arrival to discharge. After greeting the patient in the waiting room, the MA conducted an initial patient interview in the exam room, then remained in the room with the physician to document the visit. After the physician exited the exam room, the MA completed follow-up orders and provided the patient with a visit summary.

To facilitate consistency throughout the day, we designed a workflow similar to those created in lean models originally designed to increase efficiency in the manufacturing industry (TABLE 2). Visual and electronic cues triggered each step of the process and coordinated the movement of MAs and MDs. Cues included the conventional flag system outside each exam room, an electronic messaging system within the electronic health record (EHR) to indicate when a patient was ready to be seen, and a whiteboard in an area visible to all team members on which we wrote lab and radiology requests.

The TEAM model reduced wait time and increased staff interaction time with patients.

We experimented with the MA:MD ratio to identify the most effective and efficient team composition. On alternating weeks, we assigned one MA to one MD, 2 MAs to one MD, or 3 MAs to 2 MDs. Additionally, with the 2:1 MA:MD ratio, we varied the visit length in 2 tests; one spanning 30 minutes and the other 20 minutes. The MDs and MAs were seated at side-by-side workstations to make communication easier. We developed protocols and checklists that allowed MAs to enter health maintenance orders and conduct point-of-care testing before the physician entered the room. Such details included immunization management, strep screens, urine analyses, diabetic foot exams, extremity x-ray films, and mammogram and colonoscopy referrals.

Continue to: To prepare MAs...