Healthcare/Patient Safety
Question 1
At present, Langley Mason Health (LMH) is in the process of sourcing for funds to actualize the facilities master plan (FMP). The funds that have been sourced so far are insufficient. For this reason, and as has been pointed out in the case study, LMH is seeking to raise additional funds from “revenue bonds, growth strategies, philanthropic efforts, and strong operational performance over the next ten years.” This effectively leaves LMH with very little it can do in the medium-term because a significant portion of routine capital funds are also being diverted towards this same endeavor. Thus, the amount to be spent on not only equipment, but also technology acquisition and other routine maintenance concerns is very limited.
At present, there have been efforts to replace LMH aging pumps with a smart IV pump. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that such a pump would come in handy in seeking to minimize administration errors – and thus reduce patient harm. In that regard, a proposal has been floated to spend a total of $4.9 million towards this very endeavor during the next fiscal year. The problem is that as it has been pointed out in the case study, “this expenditure would consume roughly half of all the available capital dollars for that fiscal year.” Two of LMH’s top executives have opposing viewpoints on how to proceed given the concerns identified above. While one is convinced of the need to adopt a holistic perspective of the new technology implementation, and thus have it as part and parcel of the patent safety strategic plan, the other is of the opinion that an approach of this nature would be long-drawn. In the second executive’s opinion, the implementation of this technology ought to be undertaken immediately as its relevance towards the promotion of patient safety...
Given that only a total of $496 million was secured in general obligation bonds, the rest of the money – as it has been pointed out in the case study – has to be secured from other sources, i.e. enhanced operational performance, philanthropic efforts, growth strategies, as well as revenue bonds. This effectively means that LMH has to ‘up its game’ on the operational front in an attempt to not only enhance its bottom-line, but also delight and interest would-be funders. One way to do this would be by way of making improvements in the environment of care (i.e. via the enhancement of efficiency and patient safety) – which would most likely have a positive impact on patient satisfaction. For this reason, I’m persuaded to embrace Paul Robinson’s approach.
Paul Robinson is the director of pharmacy. In his opinion, “the smart IV pumps are critical to patient safety and that LMH doesn’t have time to go through a long, drawn-out planning process that could take years to implement and the process of gaining board support.” I am in agreement. Despite the fact that the available capital dollars to be expended in the purchase of a smart IV pump are minimal, LMH does not have to shelve continuous improvement efforts indefinitely or until such a time whereby the huge capital outlay for the new facilities will be offset. Replacing the health system’s pump would have an ongoing effect on the further enhancement of patient safety and, thus the promotion of patient outcomes. It is the improved patient outcomes that would most likely positively impact LMH’s operational performance as well as growth strategies even as it seeks…
