Tag Archives: nurse

Why Your Doctor Is Never on Time

Why is it that every time I go to a doctor, I am given an appointment for a precise time, and then every single time the doctor shows up at least 20 minutes late? Does the healthcare system hate me? Do doctors not want to fix the problem? Or are they just simply incompetent?

To dig deeper into the question, we at LeanTaaS dove into the operations of more than 50 healthcare providers this past year. We looked at resource utilization profiles at three different types of clinics – cancer infusion treatment, oncology and hematology – to understand the problem and how best to solve it.

The truth is that most healthcare providers have the patient’s interest at heart and are trying their level best. However, “optimal patient slotting” is a lot more complex than might appear on the surface – in fact, it is “googol-sized” in complexity. The good news is it’s a problem solvable with advanced data science; the sobering news is it MUST be solved if we are to handle the incoming onslaught of an increasing, aging patient population all carrying affordable insurance over the next 20 years.

The Doctor Will Be Right With You. NOT.

There are few things I take for granted in life, and waiting to see a doctor is one of them. The average wait time for a routine visit to a physician is 24 minutes. I am sure I am not the only one who has sat in a doctor’s waiting room thinking, “You said you would see me at 3:00 p.m. – why am I being called at 3:24? This happens every time; I bet you could have predicted it. So, why didn’t you just ask me to come at 3:24 instead?”

A Press Ganey study of 2.3 million patients at 10,000 sites nationwide found that a five-minute wait can drop patient satisfaction by 5%, a 10-minute wait by 10% and more than 10 minutes by 20%.

Source: http://www.pressganey.com/

 

That 24-minute stat is, in fact, not so bad compared with anyone who has had to get an infusion (chemo) treatment, visit a diabetes clinic, prepare for surgery or see just about any specialist. Those wait times can be hours.

Just visit any hospital or infusion center waiting room, and you will see the line of patients who have brought books, games and loved ones along to pass that agonizing wait time before the doctor sees them.

I spent the past year researching this problem and saw for myself just how overworked and harried nurses and doctors operating across the healthcare system are. I spoke to several nurses who have had days they were not able to take a single bathroom break. Clinics routinely keep a “missed meal metric” – how often nurses miss lunch breaks – and most of the ones I spoke to ring that bell loudly every day. I even heard of stories of nurses suing hospitals for having to go a whole day without breaks or meals.

The fact is that long patient wait times are terrible for hospitals, too. Long wait times are symptomatic of chronically inefficient “patient flow” through the system, and that has serious negative impact on the hospital’s economic bottom line and social responsibility:

  • Lower Access and Revenue: A natural corollary to long patient wait times is that the hospital sees fewer patients than it possibly could each day. The Medical Group Management Association found that the average utilization of operating rooms at large hospitals in 2013 was only 53%. Fewer patients served directly implies reduced access to care, lower revenues and higher unit costs.
  • Rising Labor Costs and Declining Nurse Satisfaction: Nurses are an expensive and scarce skill set. Because of the “peaks and valleys” caused by inefficient scheduling during the day, hospitals have to staff for the “peak” and simultaneously experience periods of low activity while still needing significant overtime hours from nurses.

Hospital leaders know this well. Every administrator I spoke to in my research – CEO / CAO / CNO – has some kind of transformation effort going on internally to improve patient flow – “lean” teams, 6-sigma teams, rules for how to schedule patients when they call into various clinics and so on. Leaders know that if patients could be scheduled perfectly and doctors could see them on time, the resulting “smoothing of patient flow” throughout the system would make their facilities, staff and the bottom line much better off.

The Real Reason

It’s not for a lack of motivation that the system is broken. It’s just a complex math problem.

The system is broken because hospitals are using a calculator, standard electronic health record (EHR) templates and a whiteboard to solve a math problem that needs a cluster of servers and data scientists to crunch.

To illustrate why scheduling is such a complex problem, let’s take the case of a mid-sized infusion (chemo) treatment center I studied during my research.

This infusion center has 33 chairs and sees approximately 70 patients a day. Infusion treatments come in different lengths (e.g., 1-2 hours, 3-4 hours and 5-plus hours long), and the typical daily mix of patients for these three types are 35 patients, 25 patients and 10 patients, respectively. The center schedules patients every 15 minutes starting at 8:00 a.m. with the last appointment offered at 5:30 p.m. So there are 39 possible starting times: 8:00 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 8:30 a.m., etc, ending at 5:30 p.m. The center can accommodate three simultaneous starts because of the nursing workload of getting a patient situated, the IV connected, etc. That makes a total of 39*3 = 117 potential “appointment start slots.”

That may not seem like a lot, but it results in 2.6 times 10 to the 61st power possible ways to schedule a typical, 70-patient day. (I’ll save you the math.) That’s 26 million million million million million million million million million million possibilities.

And that number is just the start. Now add in the reality of a hospital – some days nurse schedules are different from others, the pattern of demand for infusion services varies widely by day of week, doctors’ schedules are uneven across the week, special occurrences like clinical trials or changes in staff need to be considered and so on. You are looking at a problem that you can’t solve with simple heuristics and rules of thumb.

How Today’s “Patient-Centric” Scheduling Often Works – and Backfires

Very few hospitals I spoke to understand or consider this math. Rather, in trying to “make the patient happy,” most providers have been trained to use a “first come, first served” approach to booking appointments. Sometimes, providers use rules of thumb based on their knowledge of busy times of day or week, e.g., start long appointments in the morning and shorter ones later.

If hospitals were scheduling patients for one chair, one nurse and the same treatment type, some simple rules could work. But reality is a lot more complicated – the right schedule would need to consider varying treatment times across patients, include multiple treatment rooms/chairs, varying staff schedules, lab result availability and so on. Without sophisticated tools, there is an almost zero chance a scheduler can arrange appointments so treatment durations fall like Tetris blocks that align perfectly over the course of the day, and seamlessly absorb patients as they arrive, orchestrating doctor, nurse and room availability, while accounting for all the other constraints of the operation.

In effect, hospitals are scheduling “blind,” not taking into account the effect of appointments already scheduled before, during or soon after the slot being allotted on a first-come basis. Schedule currently is like adding traffic to rush hour and almost always results in a “triangle shaped utilization curve” – massive peaks in the middle of the day and low utilization on either side.

Typical utilization in an infusion treatment center with 63 chairs

 

Each of the 50 hospitals I spoke to identified precisely with this utilization curve. In fact, they identify with “the midday rush and slower mornings and evenings” so well that they have given them affectionate names – one called it their “Mount Everest,” another “Mount Rainier.”

From a cancer center’s standpoint, this chair utilization curve has several issues even beyond long patient wait times:

  • The center can only see a fraction of patients it could have with a “flatter” utilization curve.
  • Nurse scheduling has to be done for the peak, and the treatment center typically deals with lots of overtime issues.
  • Nurses find it hard to take lunch breaks because of the midday peak, while half the time the chairs are empty.
  • On any day, given the number of interdependent moving parts, a small perturbation to the system (e.g., a patient’s labs are late, another patient didn’t arrive on time) creates a domino effect, further exacerbating delays, not unlike a fender bender in rush hour traffic that delays everyone for hours.

In effect, when hospitals think they are scheduling in patient-centric ways, they are doing exactly the opposite.

They are promising patients what they cannot deliver – instead of giving the patient that 10:00 a.m. Wednesday appointment, an 11:40 a.m. appointment may have been much better for the patient and the whole system.

As we will see, the patient could have had a 70% shorter wait time, the hospital could have seen 20% more patients that week, every nurse could have taken a lunch break every day and a lot less (if any) overtime would have been required.

So How Do You Solve This “Googol-Sized Patient Slotting” Problem?

The solution lies in data science and mathematics, using inspiration from lean manufacturing practices pioneered by Toyota decades ago, such as push-pull models, production leveling, reducing waste and just-in-time production.

In mathematical terms, it means taking those 10^61 possibilities and imposing the right set of “constraints” – demand patterns, staffing schedules, desired breaks and whatever is unique to the hospital’s specific situation – to come up with a much tighter set of possible patient arrangements that solve for maximizing the utilization of hospital resources and therefore the number of patients seen.

In the case of the infusion center, the algorithm optimizes utilization of infusion chairs, making sure they are occupied uniformly for as much of the day as possible as opposed to the “peaks and valleys” in Figure 3. In essence, “rearranging the way the Tetris blocks (patients) come in” so they appear in the exact order they can be met by a nurse, prepped and readied for a doctor whose schedule has been incorporated into the algorithm.

The first step in doing this is mining the pattern of prior appointments to develop a realistic estimate of the volume and mix of appointment types for each day of the week.

The second step is imposing the real operational constraints in the clinic (e.g., the hours of operation, doctor and nurse schedules, the number of chairs, various “rules” that depend on clinic schedules, as well as patient-centric policies such as that treatments longer than four hours should be assigned to a bed and not a chair).

Finally, constraint-based optimization techniques can be applied to create an optimal pattern of “slots,” which reflect the number of “appointment starts” of each duration.

In the case of the infusion center, that means how many one-hour duration, three-hour duration and five-hour duration slots can be made available at each appointment time (i.e. 7:00 a,m., 7:15 a.m., 7:30 a.m. and so on).

Optimized shape of utilization curve for the same center as in Figure 1. 20% lower peak, much smoother utilization of resources, significant capacity freed

 

Doing this optimally results in moving the chair utilization graph from the “triangle that peaks somewhere between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.” in Figure 3 to a “trapezoid that ramps up smoothly between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., stays flat from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. and then ramps down smoothly from 4:00 p.m. on” in Figure 4.

Coming up with realistic slots that keep patients moving smoothly throughout the day cuts patient waiting times drastically, reduces nurse overtime without eliminating breaks and keeps chair utilization as high as possible for as long as possible. Small perturbations in this system are more like a fender bender at midnight, a small annoyance that causes a few minutes of delay for a small number of people instead of holding up rush hour traffic for hours.

Smoothing Patient Flow – A Large Economic Opportunity

The above graphs are sanitized versions of real data from a cancer infusion treatment center at a real hospital that used these techniques to solve their flow problems. The results they achieved are staggering and point to the massive economic and social opportunity optimal patient flow presents.

Post implementation of a product called “LeanTaaS iQueue,” they now experience:

  • 25% higher patient volumes
  • 17% lower unit cost of service delivery
  • 31% decrease in median patient wait times
  • 50% lower nurse overtime
  • Significantly higher nurse satisfaction – no missed meals

Imagine applying this kind of performance improvement to every clinic, hospital and surgery suite in the country and the impact it will have on population health through increased patient access to the system.

The Problem Is Going to Get a Lot Worse Unless Providers Address It Now

This problem is going to get a lot worse for a simple reason – the demand for medical services has never been stronger, and it’s only going to increase. Just looking at the U.S. market:

  • Population Growth: By 2050, there will be more than 438 million Americans, up from 320 million in 2015.
  • Demographics: By 2030, more than 20% of the country is expected to be older than 65, up from 15% in 2015 – increasing the demand for chronic clinical therapies. In raw numbers, the Census Bureau estimates that by 2030, when the last round of Baby Boomers will hit retirement age, the number of Americans older than 65 will hit 71 million, up from 41 million in 2011, a 73% increase. When this happens, one in five Americans will be older than 65. Not surprisingly, by 2025, 49% of Americans will be affected by a chronic disease and need corresponding therapies.
Access to healthcare is a looming crisis – multiple drivers of significant demand growth

  • The Affordable Care Act: The Affordable Care Act will add 30 million Americans to the healthcare system by 2025. That means more demand for healthcare – more doctor visits, more hospital visits, more emergency emergency room visits and more need for resources (e.g., surgery rooms, MRI / CAT scans). Reimbursements will increasingly depend on outcomes and efficacy, quality of care and patient access. Unless providers become a lot more efficient in how they process and treat patients, they will need to spend billions in capital spending on new infrastructure – clinics, operating rooms, infusion centers and the like.
  • In an online poll conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), 86% expect emergency visits to increase over the next three years. More than three-fourths (77%) say their ERs are not adequately prepared for significant increases.
  • The Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based fund that tracks healthcare performance, projects that primary care providers will see, on average, 1.34 additional office visits per week, accounting for a 3.8% increase in visits nationally. Hospital outpatient departments will see, on average, 1.2 to 11 additional visits per week, or an average increase of about 2.6% nationally.
  • It is estimated that the U.S. will face a shortage of 90,000 physicians and 500,000 nurses by 2030.

The Good News

Most healthcare providers are waking up to the fact that their operations need a data-driven, scientific overhaul much the same way as auto manufacturing, semiconductor manufacturing and all other asset-intensive, “flow”-based systems have experienced.

The good news is that there are tools, software and resources that can be used to bring about this transformation. Companies like LeanTaaS are at the forefront of this thinking and are applying complex data science algorithms to help hospitals solve these problems.

Hospitals that are serious about solving patient flow issues and the related problems now have access to the best computational minds and tools.

I see a world in which our healthcare system can see every patient on time without imposing hardship on care providers, disruption on current processes or increasing cost of services.

Here’s to that world!

Healthcare Reforms Aren’t Sustainable

A recent NPR program celebrated the success of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The benchmark was that many really sick people finally had coverage and that many poor people were now obtaining coverage because of subsidies or because of the expansion of Medicaid. If measured by participation, the healthcare reform under ACA is a success, with more growth anticipated.

Unfortunately, the long-term benchmark must be sustainability and outcomes, not participation. Government programs are often popular in the short term but not sustainable in the long term. The National Flood Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc. will ultimately have to be “adjusted” because 100% of the taxpayers are funding these systems and a very much smaller percentage of us use them.

At some point, the non-users scream “enough already.” “Other people’s money” always runs out, and the $2.6 trillion-plus spent on healthcare is not evenly divided. 47% is spent on the sickest 5% of the population, and just 3% is spent on the healthiest 50% of Americans, according to “Healing a Broken Healthcare System,” from the Louisiana Healthcare Education Coalition. Half of the people are hardly benefiting from the money they contribute under healthcare reform.

Our systems of healthcare and healthcare financing cannot be sustained as they are trending. Yesterday’s system was not sustainable; neither is today’s ACA. The marketplace must innovate. More government and more taxes are not the answer.

Obesity and diabetes are running rampant, and too many folks (especially young people) are living a sedentary lifestyle. This lifestyle adds to the “diseased population” and the future problems and costs.

Personal and family responsibility are a necessity. Nutrition (diet) and activities (exercise) are a start. Addressing the individual in all her elements — mind, body and spirit — is a must. Answers to this crisis are inside of us as individuals and populations — not just at the doctor’s office.

Providers and institutions delivering care must leverage technology for efficiency of operations and efficacy of results. Increased availability and utilization of naturopathic physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, health coaches, nutritionists, counselors and tele-medicine will ensure increased patient engagement and ultimately satisfaction and enhanced results.

Preventive medicine for all and “bringing” care and prevention to populations who can’t get to the marketplace available to most will improve lives and reduce costs. We need fewer dollars to be spent on prescriptions and invasive surgeries. It’s okay for providers and payers to just say no to demands that are not in the consumer’s best interest — regardless of what the TV commercial suggests.

Genomics, improved diagnostics to ensure earlier interventions, a focus on extending life (versus delaying death), integrated/holistic care, marrying technology and touch and technology, natural medicine and other changes are in the works now.

Other hopes rest in vascular therapy, tailored and embraced wellness plans, systems that can intervene with populations in need during crises and tailored and personalized process management for chronically ill mental health patients. Accountable care, outcome-based payment mechanisms, new models of care and care delivery and consumer engagement (personal avatars facilitating our own motivation allowing us to design our own “road to well”) are solutions now or yet to be introduced in the market of tomorrow. These are our future. Marcus Welby, M.D., is dead, but the healing and caring he delivered can live on.

This article was written in August. Last week, I received proof of the concepts. A friend received his renewal for his ACA policy. Coverage was reduced from a 70/30 co-pay (insurer pays 70%,) to a 60/40 plan, yet his premiums increased 31%. This is just the beginning — it will get worse. When you insure a majority of sick people and you subsidize many of their premiums, you will get participation. When relatively healthy and unsubsidized policyholders receive prohibitive rate increases, they will discontinue coverage, and the insured pool suffers adverse selection. Did I mention that the situation will get worse?

Did the Work Comp Nurse Make It Worse?

Case management nurses can unwittingly hinder the control of workers’ comp claims. Consider the perfect storm of “assumptions” leading to disaster: An adjuster receives a claim requiring extended treatment, makes the standard screen-clicks to assign a nurse and logs the claim in the diary. The employer assumes the case is being scrutinized and treatment is being managed. The adjuster assumes it is okay to ignore the case for a while. The nurse takes the initial claim information at something approaching face value.

In these situations, many nurses act but don’t interact. They assist with referrals and expedite the collection of medical information. Unfortunately, they may not use their clinical acumen on critical issues like compensability, diagnosis, causal relationship, return to work (RTW) and treatment plans. We should note that nurses must balance caseloads and respect their company’s requirements for speed. As such, they might feel justified in expediting what appears to be a common assignment.

When it comes to referrals, a well-intentioned nurse can cause disaster. I have experienced all of the following: a claimant alleging breathing issues referred to a “sick building expert”; a claimant with negligible head trauma to a “closed head injury specialist”; a claimant alleging jaw pain to a “TMJ dentist”; and the ever popular referral of a claimant with mysterious pains to a “chronic pain specialist.”

These real examples all involved highly questionable claimants. Needless to say, medical expert “hammers” saw perfect “nails” in each claimant and fully validated the conditions and the causal relationship each alleged. By the time of the next adjuster diary, it was all over but for the increase in reserves.

The claimant can steal control of a case and contrive subjective medical issues if a nurse simply collects doctor reports and fails to interact. Countless WC case files exist where medical notes are simply pasted in by the nurse. (As far as I am concerned, this indicates adjuster/employer failure and not necessarily a poor nurse.)

I have witnessed nurse case managers decline to intervene in RTW efforts, and the corporate nurse care management entity can, conveniently, relieve itself of RTW responsibilities without affecting its fixed fee. I would argue that some level of RTW support from a nurse can and should exist on any given case in any jurisdiction.

Quick Tip: You and Your Adjuster Must Engage and Direct Nurse Assignments

A nurse should be vital in selecting providers for specialist evaluation or independent medical exams (IMEs). However, the nurse needs the insight and outlook that can only be gained by communication and planning. Engage the nurse and explain all the case issues and concerns. Compare providers and agree on who might be most appropriate. Agree on the specific background, insight and questions to be given to this provider. An early conference call should be mandatory.

The nurse should be an active member of the claim team, including adjuster, employer, defense counsel, Medicare medical savings account (MSA) vendor and, in certain cases, the special investigative unit (SIU). Nurse contributions should be vital to team decisions and strategy.

Make certain the nurse case management fee-structure allows extended work, as a claim might require. Reconfigure if necessary to ensure nurses can spend adequate time where needed.

A nurse should be asked to evaluate, comment and make suggestions based on all medical info collected. This insight can be used by the team to make tactical and strategic decisions.

A nurse is most useful for assessing the claimant on a personal level. The nurse should be sought for oral comment on impressions and gut feelings based on interaction with the claimant. Written assessments, which are subject to discovery in legal proceedings, need to be subtle and are not as meaningful. Therefore, conference calls on an interim basis are critical for gaining powerful nurse insight.

Nurses should absolutely support RTW efforts, either at most by collecting potential jobs from the employer and sharing these directly with the employee and doctor or at minimum by reminding the doctor that the employer has a RTW program and expects participation. Somewhere along this range of support should fit any jurisdiction.

Nurses are great tactical tools against unwieldy claimants. They can relay important details and extraneous issues to a physician that can affect causation determinations and reliability assessment of subjective symptoms. Nurses give doctors an “option B” of facts and background when doctors otherwise would only consider “option A,” as relayed by a claimant. Without an “option B,” doctors are more likely to give a claimant benefit of the doubt.

Most important: The power of case management nurses is wasted if you do not provide specific insight, direction and expectation for each claim assigned.

When to Use a Nurse-Triage Program?

How many claims justify using a nurse-triage program? This is a good question that seems simple but actually can be answered in many ways.

How Much You Spend on Claims Matters More Than How Many There Are

Here is a rule of thumb based on our experience over many years: most insureds who have 100 or more claims per year find triage to be justifiable by any measure, regardless of their industry or state. The savings from avoiding unnecessary claims and from improving in-network utilization far outweigh the cost of the triage call.

Many organizations with fewer than 100 claims also find triage to be financially justifiable. Here’s an example. If an insured has 24 claims a year averaging $2,000 each, it would spend $48,000. Even a mediocre triage service could help avoid 25% of claims, saving $12,000. (A top triage service could save almost twice as much!) The 24 triage calls would cost less than $2,400, yielding a net savings after triage fees of $9,600. In actuality, many claims cost much more than $2,000 each, meaning the triage service would save even more than $9,600, and additional savings in claims administration fees and productivity are also often realized.

The determining factor in cost justification is usually what an insured spends on claims, rather than its number of claims. High claims costs justify triage faster.

Other Considerations:

– Those that are self-insured realize the savings from triage immediately. Even on referrals that become claims, good triage providers improve in-network utilization, generating savings on medical fees. Top-tier triage providers also direct referrals to the right level of care (e.g. an occupational health clinic vs. an emergency room), generating additional savings.

– Employers in fully insured programs may think that they cannot benefit from triage because they incur the cost but the savings accrue to their carrier. In fact, employers save in several ways, though it takes time. Here is one example: Employers improve their experience modifier, which significantly lowers their premium cost in the future.

– Some insureds in time-sensitive industries with specialty jobs calculate that triage’s ability to help keep workers on the job is worth more than the claims savings.

– One of the most important considerations is the medical outcome – call it the “human factor.” The best triage service is focused on getting the right care for the injured employee. Sometimes, that means early identification of a serious condition or an unrecognized risk, and making a referral that creates a claim because it’s the right thing to do for the injured employee.

Bottom line: Insureds can justify triage in a variety of ways, not just by cost or claims count. The quality and consistency of the triage provider is a key factor, too – poor triage risks poor clinical outcomes, disgruntled employees and extra costs.

How to Optimize Nurse Case Management in Workers' Comp

Traditionally, in workers’ comp, nurse case management (NCM) services have been widely espoused yet misunderstood and underutilized. The reasons for underutilization are many. Tension between NCM and claims adjusters is one. Even though overburdened, adjusters often overlook the opportunity to refer to NCM.

Also to blame is the NCM process itself. In spite of professional certification for NCM, the process is poorly defined for those outside the nursing profession. More importantly, NCM has difficulty measuring and reporting proof of value.

Underlying issues

Continuing to do business as usual is not acceptable. NCM needs to address several issues to qualify as legitimate contributors. First, NCM needs to articulate its value. To do that, NCM must computerize and standardize its process and measure and report outcomes, just like any other business in today’s world.

Too often, computerization for NCM is relegated to adding nurses’ notes to the claim system. However, such notes cannot be analyzed to measure outcomes based on specific nursing initiatives. 

In most situations, an individual NCM interprets an issue, decides on an action and delivers the response. The organization’s medical management is thereby a subjective interpretation rather than a definable, quantifiable product. 

Granted, the NCM is a trained professional. But when the product is unstructured, variables in delivery cannot be measured or appreciated. A process that is different every time can never be adequately defined.

It's crucial to establish organizational standards about what conditions in claims require referral to NCM—without exception. This will remove the myriad decisions made or not made by claims adjusters to involve the NCM. The referral can be automated through electronic claims monitoring and notification. NCM takes action on the issue according to organizational protocol, and the claims adjustor is notified.

Measure

When the conditions in claims that lead to intervention by NCM are computerized and standardized, the effects can be measured. Apples can legitimately be compared with apples, not to oranges and tennis balls. Similar conditions in claims are noted and approached the same way every time, so the results can be validly measured.

Results in claims such as indemnity costs, time from DOI to claim closure or overall claim cost can be compared before and after NCM standardization. Comparisons can be made across different date ranges for similar injuries going forward to measure continued effectiveness and hone the process.

Measuring outcomes is the most essential aspect of the process. Value is disregarded unless it is defined, measured and reported.

For non-NCMs, the dots in medical management must be connected to see the picture. Describe what was done, why it was done and how it was done the same way for similar situations and in context with the organization's standards. Then report the outcome value. Establish a continuing value communication process.

NCM constituencies should be informed in advance of the process and outcome measurements. Define in advance how problems and issues are identified and handled and how results will be measured. Then proceed consistently.

Recognized NCM value

Even as things now stand, NCM's value is being recognized. American Airlines recently reported it is adding NCM to their staff and will refer all lost time claims. The company cited a pilot project where nurse interventions were documented and measured, proving their value in getting injured workers back to work. 

Christopher Flatt, workers’ compensation Center of Excellence leader for Marsh Inc., wrote in WorkCompWire (http://www.workcompwire.com/), “One option that employers should consider as part of an integrated approach to controlling workers’ compensation costs is formalized nurse case management. Taking actions to drive down medical expenses is an essential component to controlling workers’ compensation costs.”1

Industry research and corporate or professional wisdom regarding risky situations can supply the standardized indicators for referral to NCM. American Airlines uses the standard that all lost time claims should be referred to NCM. But there are many, sometimes more subtle, indicators of risk and cost in claims that can be identified early through computerized monitoring and referred for NCM intervention.

Another example of developing standard indicators for referral is based on industry research that shows certain comorbidities, such as diabetes, can increase claim duration and cost. These claims should also be referred to NCM. Yet another example is steering away from inappropriate medical providers who can profoundly increase costs. 

As a long-ago nurse and a longer-time medical systems designer and developer, I believe the solution lies in appropriate computerized system design. The elements need to be simple to implement, easy to use and consistently applied. Only then can NCM offer proof of value.

1 Christopher Flatt: The Case for Formalized Nurse Case Management