Clinical productivity system – a decision support model

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a data‐driven clinical productivity system that leverages Electronic Health Record (EHR) data to provide productivity decision support functionality in a real‐world clinical setting. The system was implemented for a large behavioral health care provider seeing over 75,000 distinct clients a year.

Design/methodology/approach

The key metric in this system is a “VPU”, which simultaneously optimizes multiple aspects of clinical care. The resulting mathematical value of clinical productivity was hypothesized to tightly link the organization's performance to its expectations and, through transparency and decision support tools at the clinician level, affect significant changes in productivity, quality, and consistency relative to traditional models of clinical productivity.

Findings

In only three months, every single variable integrated into the VPU system showed significant improvement, including a 30 percent rise in revenue, 10 percent rise in clinical percentage, a 25 percent rise in treatment plan completion, a 20 percent rise in case rate eligibility, along with similar improvements in compliance/audit issues, outcomes collection, access, etc.

Practical implications

A data‐driven clinical productivity system employing decision support functionality is effective, because of the impact on clinician behavior relative to traditional clinical productivity systems. Critically, the model is also extensible to integration with outcomes‐based productivity.

Originality/value

EHR's are only a first step – the problem is turning that data into useful information. Technology can leverage the data in order to produce actionable information that can inform clinical practice and decision‐making. Without additional technology, EHR's are essentially just copies of paper‐based records stored in electronic form.

Citation

Bennett, C.C. (2011), "Clinical productivity system – a decision support model", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 311-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111112014