Centralizing data management in multistate hospital systems
The partner is a health care system comprised of 80+ hospitals in over 15 states. It is one of the largest U.S. health care systems in number of sites, employees, number of beds, and the net patient revenue (NPR).
Over the past fifteen years, the health care system grew through an aggressive acquisition strategy. Rapid growth resulted in noted redundancies and opportunities for efficiencies that triggered interest in a centralized approach to their clinical data management. In addition to the efficiencies, quality leaders within the organization had also noted data variances across facilities that resulted in compliance complications. In 2018, the system partnered with Q-Centrix to centralize the core measures data management for more than 100 of its sites.
After evaluating several different centralization strategies including both internal resources and external vendors, the system decided the best approach was to partner with Q-Centrix on all core measures, developing a centralization plan that would be implemented in one year.
Stakeholder buy-In: Executives were hesitant to lose oversight of staff and data procurement process
Data management: refers to the process of procuring, storing, analyzing, and utilizing health care data
- Each site adopted unique data integrity standards leading to variations in data quality
- Variation in data quality resulted in mistrust and; ultimately, unusable for PI
Employee management: variety of procedures and strategies to maximize contribution to company based on talents, skills, and needs of employees
- Employee expertise and skills varied from site to site
- Many sites had a single employee devoted to registries and feared disruption would stall work
- Employees were not exclusively dedicated to clinical data management. The multi-tasking lead to inefficiency.
- Difficulty recruiting qualified candidates for open positions
- No consistent training in data procurement
Size: hospital sites were scattered across the country and had different needs dependent on technology
- With hospitals in different states, the partner was largely dispersed throughout the country with different technology interfaces
- The implementation plan was defined by region. However, this approach added unintentional complexity.