1. The first is the case study ( Quantitative Analysis )
__MACOSX/._1. .docx
2..docx
2.
A student question (below) and my answer
You should use 1996 (not 1993) for the year on page 2. Also, check out the attached Acrobat document (Ramblings... in the file 3. as attached) for some additional thoughts on getting started.
Subject: Quick Question
In the Burn-Care unit case, it says on the last paragraph on page one that the budgeted nurse-staffing standard in 1996 was... But then, on page two, it says that the memo was written in 1993 and we are being brought on board to save the $500,000.
I have not solved the problem yet, but I am confused about the timeline. Did the case just give us future information as an FYI, or did the memo sit around for three years until we were hired? Just wanting to make sure I'm on the right track here.
__MACOSX/._2..docx
3. .docx
3.
Ramblings
Well, still some time to go before this VERY DIFFICULT case is due. You should already have started. But here’s a hint or two to make sure you didn’t get started by heading in the wrong direction.
In short, this is how I would have started my thought process. Warning: I haven’t double checked my analyses or spreadsheets; this is my first cut, so there may be errors.
Remember, you need to recommend changes that will save $500K/year. To do that you need to develop a baseline cost estimate (a model) for what things cost now, and then use the model to create strategic cost estimates for what the annual cost would be under various changes in policy. Somehow you need to get to $500K in annual savings using one or more strategies.
Explorations and Meanderings
OK, I call this spelunking around the data files. Just following my hunches to see if I can better understand the case. After I get done with that I’ll see about developing the baseline cost estimate.
First I thought I’d play a bit with understanding the Daily Staffing Pattern data. We must be careful of these numbers – they are budgeting data,
not actual data, and are based on the old staffing assumption of 22 hours per patient @ 30 patients.
Note: 55 staff per day @ 12 hours per day = 660 hours; 30 patients / day * 22 hours of staffing = 660. So, those calculations jibe. Rah!!!
But, the “new” standard, as of December 1996 is 3.5 hours of DIRECT care per day per patient acuity point. So, I wonder, how many hours of DIRECT care does the “Daily Staffing Pattern” provide. To figure that out I figured I would have to mix together the “Daily Staffing Pattern” data and the “Percent Time Distribution by Task and Level” data.
3.1
Ramblings
First, I re‐entered the “Daily Staffing Pattern” data. I turned the data around, and then I re‐calculated the information in hours. Note that I took the time to make it “pretty.” Why you ask? Because I figure that a fair number of these tables will find there way into my final report, so I might as well make them pretty now. Note also I calculated the “skill mix” ratio with and without the Head Nurse and USs, and for the two shifts separately. I might want that info later
Note that I don’t know whether the shifts start at 6 or 7 or whatever, but I’m just assuming 6, and it really won’t matter to the analysis.
|
Daily Staffing Pattern (in hours, by shift)
|
(in headcount, by shift)
|
|||||||||||
|
|
HNs |
RNs |
LPNs |
NAs |
USs |
TOTAL |
HNs |
RNs |
LPNs |
NAs |
USs |
TOTAL |
|
6 am ‐ 6 pm |
12 |
228 |
48 |
48 |
24 |
360 |
1 |
19 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
30 |
|
skill mix |
3.3% |
63.3% |
13.3% |
13.3% |
6.7% |
100.0% |
3.3% |
63.3% |
13.3% |
13.3% |
6.7% |
100.0% |
|
skill mix (no HN or US) |
|
70.4% |
14.8% |
14.8% |
|
100.0% |
|
70.4% |
14.8% |
14.8% |
|
100.0% |
|
6 pm ‐ 6 am |
0 |
228 |
48 |
0 |
24 |
300 |
0 |
19 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
25 |
|
skill mix |
0.0% |
76.0% |
16.0% |
0.0% |
8.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
76.0% |
16.0% |
0.0% |
8.0% |
100.0% |
|
skill mix (no HN or US) |
|
82.6% |
17.4% |
0.0% |
|
100.0% |
|
82.6% |
17.4% |
0.0% |
|
100.0% |
|
Daily |
12 |
456 |
96 |
48 |
48 |
660 |
1 |
38 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
55 |
|
skill mix |
1.8% |
69.1% |
14.5% |
7.3% |
7.3% |
100.0% |
1.8% |
69.1% |
14.5% |
7.3% |
7.3% |
100.0% |
|
skill mix (no HN or US) |
|
76.0% |
16.0% |
8.0% |
|
100.0% |
|
76.0% |
16.0% |
8.0% |
|
100.0% |
3.2
Ramblings
While working with the table I make note of a couple of things that may prove to be of future interest
· The hospital uses a lot more RNs than LPNs, although LPNs are cheaper.
· The hospital isn’t using any NAs (nursing assistants) on the overnight shift.
Nextmitewas ti to play with the “Percent Time Distribution by Task and Level.” I entered the data in a separate table in my spreadsheet, with
formulas (‘cuz I might need to change it later!), and I added a column for HNs, “guessing” at how they might spend their time.
Task Category (percent of time)
HNs RNs LPNs NAs USs
|
Direct: |
|
0% |
42% |
58% |
50% |
0% |
|
|
Professional |
0% |
22% |
28% |
10% |
0% |
|
|
Non‐Professional |
0% |
20% |
30% |
40% |
0% |
|
Indirect: |
|
0% |
32% |
26% |
35% |
70% |
|
|
Professional |
0% |
20% |
16% |
5% |
0% |
|
|
Non‐Professional |
0% |
12% |
10% |
30% |
70% |
|
Unit‐Based |
|
92% |
18% |
7% |
5% |
20% |
|
Personal |
|
8% |
8% |
9% |
10% |
10% |
|
|
Total |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
3.3
Ramblings
While working with the table I make note of a couple of things that may prove of future interest
· I don’t know what US stands for, but I note that they provide no Direct or Professional services. I guess I will think of them as clerical types – “un‐skilled” in the sense of nursing skills.
· I also note that LPNs provide a fair amount more direct service than RNs, but, as we know from above, the hospital isn’t using LPNs very much.
At last I can get back to my earlier question – How many hours of DIRECT care does the “Daily Staffing Pattern” provide. When I use the info in the two tables above together (multiplying number of hours per day by % of time spent on direct care for each category), I discover
Daily Direct Service Hours
|
HNs |
RNs |
LPNs |
NAs |
USs |
TOTAL |
|
0.0 |
191.5 |
55.7 |
24.0 |
0.0 |
271.2 |
|
daily service hours per patient = direct service supports this average acuity level per patient = |
9.04
2.58 |
Recall, the budget staffing plan was based on 30 patients, so 9.04=271.2/30.
And, the “new” worked nurse‐staffing standard calls for 3.5 hours of direct care per patient acuity points, so this staffing pattern can cover 30 patients with an average acuity level of 2.58 (9.04/3.5).
Now, I wonder, what is the “average acuity level” per patient... Guess I ought to play with that next.
__MACOSX/._3. .docx
4..docx
4.
Don't forget, you might find Reviewing: Spreadsheets in zip file 4-1. as attached material useful.
I would probably want to investigate the statement made at the top of page 2 to see if I could understand why Mr. Adams believed the Baylor Plan cost the hospital a lot of money.
Also, recall that the Baylor Plan is not just used in the Burn Care unit, but also in the ICU and CCU.
__MACOSX/._4..docx
5. .docx
5.
A student question (below) and my answer.
I have given three hints already – the best two are in my email/message “ramblings”
(i) make sure you distinguish between the budget and the actuals; and
(ii) create an actuals baseline, and then demonstrate how your proposed strategies will change the actuals baseline costs.
My other suggestion was to work through the materials in the Reviewing Spreadsheets folder on OneDrive if you are a little rusty with Excel.
From: a student Subject: Burn Case Question
I am truly having some difficulty trying to develop a plan for this case. Are there any resources that you can direct me that I can use?
__MACOSX/._5. .docx
6. .pdf
__MACOSX/._6. .pdf
7..docx
7.
A student question (below) and my answer.
As suggested in class, you will want to understand the differences between RNs and LPNs, so I deliberately do not address that aspect of your question.
Re: the NAs and USs, I could give you examples, but they would be a guess, and your guess is probably as good as mine. I’m not sure that however you answer your question, it will lead you in a useful direction; I could be wrong.
Another Hint: yesterday a student asked about using technology to make the nurses, etc., more productive. The student referred to my typical “today’s technology at today’s prices” case instructions. Hmmm, note that this instruction was NOT included in Burn Care. That’s because the case already includes a technology-based option for increasing nurses’ direct care productivity – the TSS. That is the only technology option that should be considered.
Yet Another Hint : In a prior semester, a student proposed trying to reduce costs by trying to negotiate prescription drug prices with the Big Pharmas. While such WAY, WAY “out of the box” suggestions can certainly be included in the list of alternatives you add in at the end [and I’ve got a couple of more viable/plausible ones in mind that you probably should have thought of yourself], don’t rely on them to replace a thorough analysis of the possible staffing solutions/strategies. Remember, there are no silver bullets and you can’t assume you will win the lottery: ) [Heh, if the Feds and Medicare can’t twist the arm of Big Pharmas, do you think one hospital can???]
From: a student Subject: Question re Task categories
I had a question about the "professional" and "non-professional" subcategories. Could you give an example of what a "non-professional" task might be in both the "direct" and "Indirect" categories?
__MACOSX/._7..docx
8. .pdf
__MACOSX/._8. .pdf
9. .docx
Answer to second question – What are you adding together to get the 236K? Check your worked hours by class by type against my page 6 table – do they match. If I had to guess I would suspect your formulas for the Regular nursing staff were somehow a little bit wrong, but it also could be with your formulas for Flex and Agency.
From: a student Subject: Re: Probably a fatal error
A follow-up...if the total hours worked by source is 234,004.0, shouldn't the annual total hours for each of the by-source-by-type (bottom row of regular HN through Agency NA) equal 234,004? It currently totals to around 236k. When you subtract out the 168+672 in the formulas for Agency and Flex, then the totals equal out. Is this significant, or am I just down an unnecessary rabbit hole?
OK, now back to your first question.
1. Columns 5-8 of the page 6 table show Worked Hours by Type based on the reported FTEs.
2. Since there were no HN or US hours for Flex or Agency why would I subtract them out?
3. Note that 0.76 + 0.16 + 0.08 = 1.0 (100%).
From: a student Subject: Probably a fatal error
Hello and Happy Saturday,
I'm rethinking most of my numbers after receiving Ramblings 3. I think I have most of my formulas straight, but there's one thing I can't wrap my mind around. Perhaps you can't answer, but I figured I would try...
In the "Census and Acuity Data by Pay-Period" table, the way I have my formula set up for regular employees is basically: [the fraction of total hours worked by regular employees in that period, or "regular/total"] * [the percentage of the type (RN, LPN, NA)] * [total hours - hours worked by HNs and USs (168+672 without formulas)]. All my numbers came out the same as yours in that section.
However in the Flex-Pool and Agency sections, it seems like your numbers don't subtract out that 168+672. I understand that the Flex and Agency Pools are not providing HNs or USs, but why wouldn't we still account for the HN and US contribution to total hours? To get to those 76, 16, 8 percent of hours worked in a given shift by RNs, LPNs, and NAs, (as I understand it), we subtract the hours worked by HNs and USs from the total in the formula...so I'm having a hard time understanding why we wouldn't use that same pattern when we're talking about total annual hours.
Any clues you can give would be more than welcome. Thanks and have a good weekend.