4.5 Article

Optimizing Outpatient Phlebotomy Staffing Tools to Assess Staffing Needs and Monitor Effectiveness

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 138, 期 7, 页码 929-935

出版社

COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0450-OA

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context.-Short patient wait times are critical for patient satisfaction with outpatient phlebotomy services. Although increasing phlebotomy staffing is a direct way to improve wait times, it may not be feasible or appropriate in many settings, particularly in the context of current economic pressures in health care. Objective.-To effect sustainable reductions in patient wait times, we created a simple, data-driven tool to systematically optimize staffing across our 14 phlebotomy sites with varying patient populations, scope of service, capacity, and process workflows. Design.-We used staffing levels and patient venipuncture volumes to derive the estimated capacity, a parameter that helps predict the number of patients a location can accommodate per unit of time. We then used this parameter to determine whether a particular phlebotomy site was overstaffed, adequately staffed, or understaffed. Patient wait-time and satisfaction data were collected to assess the efficacy and accuracy of the staffing tool after implementing the staffing changes. Results.-In this article, we present the applications of our approach in 1 overstaffed and 2 understaffed phlebotomy sites. After staffing changes at previously understaffed sites, the percentage of patients waiting less than 10 minutes ranged from 88% to 100%. At our previously overstaffed site, we maintained our goal of 90% of patients waiting less than 10 minutes despite staffing reductions. All staffing changes were made using existing resources. Conclusions.-Used in conjunction with patient wait-time and satisfaction data, our outpatient phlebotomy staffing tool is an accurate and flexible way to assess capacity and to improve patient wait times.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据