Showing posts with label Integrated_healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Integrated_healthcare. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Debilitating Decision Delays

Deliberating Decision Delays
The performance pitfall perils of procrastinating for proof
By Alan Perry
3/8/15



In the era of evidence based best practices for the EMS and Fire services, we are beginning to accept that this ideal as the norm rather than the exception. Those holding the purse strings and writing policy are more often compelled to act based on evidence and proof of value before allocating resources. This is of course the most responsible and practical thing to do, but should this rule be applied to every decision we make? Is there still value in making decisions based on reasonable expectations? Does every project have to have some specific, measurable and obtainable outcome to have merit? If we are bound by this dictum we would all be hemmed up in a hopeless feedback loop of indecision every time we tried to do something new and unproven for which no “proof” exists. Someone actually has to do something before any proof or positive results can be found, and occasionally the outcome is not what we expect even if it is a positive one.

A perfect example is public education; fire prevention programs have a proven and documented history of success as declining fire events and related injuries can attest. Why then, do we have to prove that an injury/illness prevention program will work and establish a set of metrics to analyze it? The benefits of education and prevention programs go far beyond reducing injuries and illness, although those would be primary goals. The benefits generally translate into greater public support, better reactions to emergencies and participation in community health and safety, things that can be difficult to measure but can have a profound impact on the community’s resistance to emergencies of all types.

The same logic can be applied to integrating healthcare services and incorporating EMS systems into the patient care continuum. Start where you stand, do not be blinded by the wide array of possibilities. I assure you, that while you are doing your research and developing evaluation methods to measure your success, someone will be acting. EMS is not alone in this arena, hospitals, public health, health care systems and insurers are all looking for ways to improve their bottom lines while improving the quality of care for patients as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Most traditional Fire and EMS systems are ill prepared to step into this fast paced arena using old management philosophies and insufficient resources compared to the other players.

In areas where diversity in delivery models is significant, consensus is the enemy. I’m not saying cooperation isn’t desirable or even preferred, I’m merely pointing out that while trying to mesh too many disparities it will be difficult if not impossible to reach a decision that will enable all parties to benefit and maximize the use of the resources they have. I have seen such attempts last for months if not years with no tangible results or even progress. Sometimes you have to take the tools you have, the resources you have, and use them to start pushing the ball forward.

The word I’m looking for is responsibility; as public safety professionals we have a responsibility to the citizen taxpayers to provide responsive and caring service, keep up with the state of EMS & Fire sciences, adopt and develop the most effective care and delivery practices, dedicate sufficient and appropriate resources to training and equiping our providers, and act with purpose when we know our system needs work. We can ill afford to attend another unproductive meeting or continue to conduct business as usual when that is not producing the change our services desperately need.

We have known for several years that routine back-boarding of patients is of no benefit, and can actually be harmful, why do we still do it? Narcan, in the hands of a first responders or bystanders saves lives, why don’t we permit it? Fire and EMS personnel are injured every week in vehicle accidents even though the evidence indicates priority responses have no proven relationship to patient outcomes, why do we run two, three or four vehicles lights and sirens to any EMS call? We know integration of healthcare and EMS benefits patients and the EMS systems involved, why have we not yet acted? These are just some examples of best practices that are delayed by our traditional decision making process. It is broken, it may be time to re-evaluate our command structures and seek a leaner more responsive model that is made possible by using modern communication tools.

As a test, try asking one of those questions of the person next in your chain of command. If you have a responsive and nimble organization that person should be able to answer the question directly and have the ability to effect an immediate change if needed. If you do not have a responsive nimble organization you will have to wait for an answer from the ivory tower, if you ever get a reply at all, it will likely not result in any change or further discussion of the matter. You can’t hold an individual responsible for that type of problem, it is cultural in nature, it is no wonder that when leaders of such organizations gather to address the need for change and new challenges facing them, they are hopelessly mired in the apparatus of consensus and “chain of command” decision making.

I don’t like putting stuff like this out there without trying to point us in the right direction for solving it, so here it goes;
·                       - Flatten the command structure.
·                        - Use the freed-up resources to allocate sufficient personnel to training and organization                          development.
·                        -Spread out authority and accountability for decision making.
·                        - Don’t be afraid to do the right thing.
·                         -Do it now

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

There's No Time

Don’t Re-invent Community Paramedicine, There’s no time!

By Alan Perry
September 25, 2013

It baffles me that the issues of community paramedicine, integrated healthcare and implementation of the EMS agenda for the future are still not resolved. Here we are, less than 30 days from major portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) being implemented, with most agencies having no clue how they will be affected and how/if they are going to make any changes. We have got to start thinking outside the box (pun intended). As we gather to meet and discuss these eventualities we need to stop trying to re-invent the whole process every time. There is a large body of work already completed working programs in place by nearly every variety of EMS system and free money to make it all happen. Duplication of effort is never a good idea, we must learn quickly to take the good work already done and apply it to what we are doing, or need to be doing.

Here’s the problem, the PPACA does not specify how medical care will be provided it only specifies the desired outcome and the penalties for not achieving the “triple aim”. So everyone involved in the process, especially those with the most to gain or lose, are moving aggressively to develop programs with little consideration on the effect on EMS services. The EMS community apparently does not feel threatened by this, much like our apathy about the recommendations of the EMS agenda for the future we think we have all the time in the world and that our federal or state officials will tell us how to proceed. I can tell you now that the Federal and State officials tasked with oversight of EMS don’t have a plan. The hour is growing very short; we are approaching a point where we will have to transition from being proactive to being reactive.

The best publication I have found so far is from the National Consensus Conference on Community Paramedicine, the meeting in October of 2012 produced an excellent summary of how a program should work that can be easily tailored and implemented incrementally by any EMS service. I am aware that the National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC), State offices of EMS, Local EMS councils and individuals are also working on their own plans, expending great amounts of time and effort to go through the same process already completed by acknowledged experts. Why? I suspect part of the problem is that it is not a priority. EMS still takes a back seat to other emergency services in many locales. Those tasked with this project may not have funding, and although grants may be available it may not be a priority for the senior administration.

Any program of this type must go through some necessary developmental steps that don’t necessarily need to occur in a chronological order. While you are obtaining the data to quantify the problem you can also be developing a general selection and training program for your providers, having dialog with the other stakeholders and creating your grant requests, and building the infrastructure to support it. This is possible because of the large body of work already completed and some known variables for your program. We must be seen by our healthcare partners, the public and policy makers to be taking positive steps to move our systems forward toward improving outcomes, reducing costs and improving the overall healthcare experience.

Acknowledge the quality of the work already done, use it, build upon it, and modify it. Build upon this foundation of what will be a new way of doing business, embracing the goals of the EMS agenda for the future and the PPACA. They are defining what we do and what the public needs and expects from us.




References:

Patterson DG, Skillman SM. National Consensus Conference on Community Paramedicine: Summary of a Expert Meeting. Seattle, WA: WWAMI Rural Health Research Center, University of Washington; Feb 2013.

DOT, HHS. Innovation Opportunities for Emergency Medical Services: A Draft White Paper. NEMSAC, July 2013.


Goodwin J, Finding a New Seat at the Healthcare Table, Best Pactices in Emergency Medical Services, Vol. 16, No. 7, July 2013