May2011-TownHall - GHS Blog

Report
Town Hall Meetings
Series 19
May 2011
Acknowledge
Introduce
Duration
Explain
Thank
2
AGENDA
1. Vision, Mission, Values
2. SC State Budget Update
– Howell
3.
4.
5.
6.
Clyborne, VP for Government and Community Relations
Campus President Update
System Goals and other Updates
Employee Opinion Survey Results
Wrap-Up, Questions, and Surveys
Who We Are
Our Vision
Transform health care for the benefit of the people
and communities we serve.
Our Mission
Heal compassionately. Teach innovatively.
Improve constantly.
What We Stand For
GHS Values
Our core values are compassion, respect,
caring, honesty, integrity, and trust. We live
our values through open communication,
forward thinking, creativity, continually striving to
improve, responsiveness, a willingness to
change, education, research, and clinical quality.
State of South Carolina
Economic Overview
Howell Clyborne
VP, Community and
Government Affairs
South Carolina’s
Economy
Budget Year
FY2008/2009 Budget
FY 2011/2012 Projected
SC State
Budget
Date
$7.1 Billion
July 2008
$5.9 Billion *
Feb 2011
A $1.2 billion drop in South Carolina’s
State Budget over three years.
Source:
South Carolina Board of
Economic Advisors
*Includes Trust Funds
7
SC Department of Health and
Human Services (“HHS”) FY 11-12
SC House budget line for HHS:
SC Senate budget line for HHS:
$ 947,371,086
$ 917,279,786
Specific Impact to Hospitals
•
•
•
•
Reducing growth rate from 10% to 8%
$125 million from a reduction in provider rates
Cuts will not be across the board.
Estimated cuts to hospitals 10% or higher!
Specific Impact to GHS: $20 Million
8
Where Are We In the Process?
House Passed Their Version of
Budget in March
We anticipate the Senate will pass
their version in early May
The Budget will go to a Conference Committee
The Governor will have veto option
9
Campus President’s
Update
10
FY 2011 Goals Update
11
Pillar Framework
for FY 2011
GHS Total Health Philosophy
The GHS Total Health philosophy is central to our
approach to health care delivery, work force development
and medical education. We value interdisciplinary
collaboration throughout a highly integrated delivery structure
using patient-centered, standardized, and evidence-based
practices with reportable quality and financial outcomes.
GHS Pillars of Excellence
People
Service
Quality
Growth
Finance
Academics
We work to transform health
care.
Measured by:
2011 Employee Opinion Survey –
Commitment Index Score
Target: 4.29 (85th Percentile)
Result: 4.21 (72nd Percentile)
Patients and families are the
focus of everything we do.
Measured by:
HCAHPS Overall Rating*
(Percent 9’s and 10’s)
Press Ganey Overall Mean Scores**
*Inpatient
FY 2011
Targets
YTD
Results
74.0%
73.0%
78th
**Ambulatory
Surgery
**Emergency
Services.
%-tile
93.7
93.4
83rd %-tile
86.4
65th
%-tile
83.4
3
We provide right care at the
right time and in the right
place.
Measured By
Targets
YTD Results
CMS All Care
Measures
93.0%
93.4%
Patient Safety
Culture
Survey
Hand
Hygiene
75th %-tile
67%
75th %-tile
Not yet
available.
80%
89.3%
(Year Two)
2
Spotlight on “Owner”
Behavior
• Kathy Taylor, RN NICU
• Identified a safety risk with
identical clear tubing for IV
fluids and humidifying mist in
incubators
• Raised the issue with her
nurse manager, Jennifer
Griffin and they contacted
the manufacturer
• RESULT: blue tubing for
humidifier/clear for IV fluids.
A great example of personal commitment to our
16
culture of patient safety.
We develop our System to
meet the needs of our
communities.
Measured
By
Net
Revenue
New
Patient
Visits
Annual
Target
$1,363 M
146,195
YTD
Target
YTD
Results
$670.0 M $678.0 M
72,604
1
68,534
Through March 2011
1
We responsibly direct our
resources to support our
mission.
Measured by:
Operating Margin
Annual
Target
YTD
Target
YTD
Results
1.5%
($21.0 M)
0.9%
1.7%
Through March 2011
We educate to transform
health care.
Measured by:
Implementation of strategic initiatives that
advance our Academic Health System model.
Target:
Achieve preliminary accreditation of USCSOMGreenville during October, 2011.
YTD RESULT: LCME application
submitted. Site visit scheduled
for July.
FY 2011 Employee Incentive
Mid-Year Projection
0.15*
0.30*
0.30*
0.0
0.0
0.20
---
---
0.25*
0.25
Dashed lines indicate scores that could still change as the fiscal year progresses.
*Weighting
Mid-Year Projection: 0.45 of a possible 1.0% of earnings
Linked to GHS Organizational Goals
• All employees share these goals
• Same calculation for all levels in the
organization
Potential Employee Incentive:
• Up to 1% of FY 2010 earnings;
maximum of $1,000
FY 2011 Financial Trigger – No payout if payment would result in an operating margin of less than 1.5%.
Two More Quick Updates
21
US News & World Report
Best Hospitals
Greenville Memorial Hospital
#25
#39
#45
Drill-Down
How We Did It
• Commitment to being a highly integrated
delivery system:
–
–
–
–
Specialty hospitals
Regional referral center
Physician practices (employed/affiliated)
Clinical staff
• Ranking Criteria – reputation, mortality, patient
safety, and other (technology, patient services, presence
of intensivists, palliative care…)
Clinic
(#1 )
31.2
0.0
.62
5
5,907
2
No
4
6
100.0
70.8
.47
3
12,433
2.2
Yes
7
7
Patient Svc.
(of 8)
Technology
(of 7)
Nurse
Magnet
Nurse
Staffing
Discharges
(3 years)
Reputation
Patient
Safety Max=5
Cleveland
Mortality
(below 1 is
better)
GMH
(#45)
U.S. News
Score
Hospital
Heart & Heart Surgery
Heart and Heart Surgery
Technology
Cardiac ICU
Multi-slice spiral CT
PET/CT scanner
Robotic surgery
Single-photon-emission
CT
 Transplant services*



×

*Hospitals can get 2 points for transplant
services if they perform both tissue &
heart transplants.
Patient Service
Cardiac Rehab
Hospice
Pain management
Palliative care
Patient-controlled
analgesia
 Translators
 Wound-management
services


×


Related UMG physician group – Carolina Cardiology and Dept. of Surgery/Cardiothoracic Surgery
Greenville Pitches In
for GHS MedEx Academy
• June 29th at Flour Field
• Come out and throw a “first
pitch” and maybe see some of
the Drive players up close and
personal
• Pitching Time: 4:00 -6:00 p.m.
• Game Time: 7:00 p.m.
• $1.00 from each game day
ticket purchased will be donated
to GHS MedEx Academy
• Enjoy the game and support our
MedEx program.
26
2011 Employee Opinion
Survey Results
27
Morehead’s National Healthcare Average
Updated annually and reflective of over 350 organizations, more than 800
healthcare facilities and over one million healthcare workers, Morehead’s
National Healthcare Average is a benchmark designed to mirror the
distribution (geography and sector) of the U.S. healthcare labor force.
Representative clients include:








Advocate Healthcare
Carolinas HealthCare System
Catholic Health East
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Cincinnati Children's Hospital
Legacy Health System (OR)
NYU Medical Center







2
28
828
Provena Health
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
Scottsdale Healthcare (AZ)
Texas Children’s Hospital
The Methodist Hospital System (TX)
Univ. of California Medical Centers
Univ. of Chicago Medical Center
GHS System Results
2
9
29
Employee Participation
Administration Period: March 2011
Administration Mode: Online Survey
Historical
Response
Rate Trend
100%
9,978
Employees
Invited
7,842
Employees
Responded
80%
7,048
7,894
7,842
80%
81%
79%
2009
2010
2011
60%
40%
20%
0%
30
Domain Scores
GHS 2009
GHS 2010
GHS 2011
Natl HC Avg
4.40
4.30
4.20
4.10
4.31
4.29
4.21
4.16
4.18 4.17
4.15
4.14
4.10
4.07
4.07
4.00
4.05
4.05 4.04
3.97 3.96
3.90
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
Commitment Indicator
Employee
Manager
31
Organization
Key Findings
Accomplishments
Opportunities
 Workforce commitment continues
to score significantly (+.05) above
National Healthcare (NHC) Average
 Employee respect and fair
comp/benefits performed below
NHC Average (both previously
significantly above)
 Strongest aspect of commitment is “I
would recommend this
organization to family and friends
who need care.”
 Number of Tier I work units
decreases to 230 (39%) and Tier III
increases to 123 (21%)
 Over 60% (7 out of 11) of the
facilities scored above the NHC
Average
 Lowest performing item is “I am
satisfied with my benefits.”
 Items with greatest decline is “My
pay is fair compared to other
healthcare employers in this area.”
 Highest performing item is “My
work unit works well together.”
 Most improved item is “Employees
in my work unit help customers,
clients, patients even when it's not
part of their job.”
 Lack of employee involvement cited
the most (+60%) as a reason to leave
32
Overall Workforce Commitment*
Performance Difference:
2011
Greenville
Hospital
System
National
Healthcare
Average
2010
GHS
2009
GHS
Workforce
Commitment
Percentile
Ranking
4.21
+.05
-.08
-.10
72nd
Note – In this presentation GREEN/ RED notes a statistically significant difference.
•National Healthcare Average +/- .03
•Greenville Hospital System 2010 +/- .03
*This is the GHS system measure
for our People Goal.
•Greenville Hospital System 2009 +/- .03
33
Measuring Workforce Commitment
Difference from:
Workforce Commitment Item
40. I am proud to tell people I work for
this organization.
46. I would recommend this
organization to family and friends who
need care.
54. I would like to be working at this
organization three years from now.
59. I would stay with this organization
if offered a similar job elsewhere for
slightly higher pay.
63. I consider this organization the
healthcare employer of choice in this
area.
66. I would recommend this
organization as a good place to work.
67. Overall, I am a satisfied employee.
2011
GHS
%
Unfav
Natl
HC Avg
2010
GHS
2009
GHS
4.36
2%
+.01
-.07
-.08
4.42
3%
+.09
-.02
+.03
4.40
4%
+.14
-.07
-.08
3.75
15%
+.04
-.12
-.12
4.26
4%
+.05
-.06
-.08
4.19
5%
+.02
-.10
-.19
4.09
7%
+.02
-.11
-.19
34
Workforce Commitment by Facility
CI Score 2010
CI Score 2011
4.50
99th
%tile
4.25
91st
%tile
94th
%tile
72nd
%tile
94th
%tile
78th
%tile
99th
%tile
90th
%tile
63rd
%tile
98th
%tile
79th
%tile
34th
%tile
4.00
3.75
3.50
GHS Overall
Corporate Services Greenville Memorial
35
Greer Memorial
Hillcrest
Pickens
Workforce Commitment by Facility (continued)
CI Score 2010
CI Score 2011
4.50
4.25
98th
%tile
99th
%tile
94th
%tile
95th
%tile
93rd
%tile
72nd
%tile
72nd
%tile
4.00
74th
%tile
24th
%tile
84th
%tile
14th
%tile
3.75
1st
%tile
3.50
North Greenville
Patewood
Roger C. Peace
36
The Children’s
Hospital
The Cottages at
Brushy Creek
University Medical
Group
Workforce Commitment by Position
Senior Management (11) +.62
Centerline is
2011 GHS
Workforce
Commitment
Score 4.21
Leadership Team (115) +.39
Management (469) +.29
Non-clinical Professional (253) +.20
Employed Physician (271) +.19
Non-clinical Technician (194) +.15
Natl HC Avg
CI = 4.16
Administrative/Fiscal (1,668) -.01
Clinical Technician (1,035) -.02
Other Non-clinical Support (534) -.02
Other Clinical Support (782) -.06
Registered Nurse (1,979) -.08
Clinical Professional (491) -.12
Physician Resident (40) -.13
-0.20
37
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Workforce Commitment by Tenure
The GHS
2011
Average is
4.21
4.60
4.50
4.40
4.37
4.34
4.32
4.27
4.20
4.18
Natl HC Avg
CI = 4.16
4.17
4.11
4.12
2 yrs
(893)
3 yrs
(772)
4.19
4.09
4.00
3.80
3.60
<90 days 90 days(208)
1 yr
(594)
1 yr
(768)
38
4 yrs
(403)
5-9 yrs 10-14 yrs 15-19 yrs 20-24 yrs 25+ yrs
(1,706) (1,062)
(390)
(425)
(621)
Workforce Commitment by Shift
Centerline is
2011 GHS
Workforce
Commitment
Score 4.21
Natl HC Avg
CI = 4.16
Day shift (6,427) +.03
Night shift (906) -.11
Evening shift (509) -.14
-0.15
39
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
Workforce Commitment by Gender
Centerline is
2011 GHS
Workforce
Commitment
Score 4.21
Male (1,375)
+.03
Female (6,467)
-.01
Natl HC Avg
CI = 4.16
-0.02
40
0.00
0.02
0.04
Workforce Commitment by Race
Centerline is
2011 GHS
Workforce
Commitment
Score 4.21
Natl HC Avg
CI = 4.16
Native Hawaiian or other +.14
Pacific Islander (5)
Hispanic or Latino (169) +.11
White (6,320)
.00
Asian (107) -.01
Black or African American (1,203) -.04
American Indian or AK Native (12) -.08
Two or more races (26) -.36
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00
41
0.10
0.20
Workforce Commitment by Age
The GHS
2011
Average is
4.21
4.50
4.25
4.36
4.34
4.21
4.14
4.14
20-29
(1,110)
30-39
(1,780)
4.31
4.25
4.00
3.75
Natl HC Avg
CI = 4.16
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
<20 (17)
42
40-49
(2,092)
50-59
(2,089)
60-69 (698)
70+ (56)
Key Driver Analysis
Difference from:
KEY DRIVERS of Workforce Commitment
(in order of influence)
Domain
2011
GHS
%
Unfav.
Nat’l HC
Avg
2010
GHS
60. I feel like I belong in this organization.
EMP
4.03
7%
-.04
-.07
53. I selected this organization as a place to
work because its values reflect my own.
EMP
4.08
4%
+.05
-.03
27. I like the work I do
EMP
4.57
1%
+.07
-.03
22. This organization provides high-quality
care and service.
ORG
4.35
2%
+.04
-.01
65. I have confidence in senior
management’s leadership.
ORG
3.93
9%
+.11
-.10
49. Patient safety is a priority in this
organization.
ORG
4.46
2%
-.01
-.02
62. The environment at this organization
makes employees in my work unit want to go
above and beyond what’s expected of them.
EMP
3.68
16%
+.11
-.07
43
Measuring Domain Performance
Difference from:
Model Domain
2011
GHS
Natl
HC Avg
2010
GHS
2009
GHS
Organization Domain
3.97
+.01
-.07
-.08
Manager Domain
4.07
+.02
-.03
-.08
Employee Domain
4.14
+.07
-.03
-.04
44
Highest Performing Items
Diff. from:
HIGHEST PERFORMING ITEMS
Compared to the National Healthcare
Average
Domain
2011
GHS
%
Unfav
Natl
HC Avg
2010
GHS
1. My work unit works well together.
EMP
4.26
6%
+.15
.00
51. The person I report to follows up on
my concerns/questions from rounding.
MGR
4.04
11%
+.15
-.03
11. This organization contributes to the
community.
ORG
4.40
1%
+.13
-.03
24. Physicians and staff work well
together.
ORG
4.03
6%
+.13
+.01
19. This organization cares about
employee safety.
ORG
4.32
4%
+.12
-.03
45
Lowest Performing Items
Diff. from:
LOWEST PERFORMING ITEMS
Compared to the National Healthcare
Average
Domain
2011
GHS
%
Unfav
Natl
HC Avg
2010
GHS
21. I am satisfied with my benefits.
ORG
3.34
26%
-.33
-.19
36. I am satisfied with my job security.
ORG
3.83
12%
-.07
-.02
16. I am involved in decisions that affect
my work.
MGR
3.64
18%
-.06
-.04
60. I feel like I belong in this
organization.
EMP
4.03
7%
-.04
-.07
13. Different levels of this organization
communicate effectively with each other.
ORG
3.42
22%
-.03
-.02
50. I can report patient safety mistakes
without fear of punishment.
ORG
4.15
7%
-.03
-.02
2. This organization cares about its
customers.
ORG
4.29
3%
-.03
-.03
46
Most Improved Items
Diff. from:
MOST IMPROVEMENT Compared to
Greenville Hospital System 2010
Domain
2011
GHS
%
Unfav
2010
GHS
Natl
HC Avg
10. Employees in my work unit help
customers/clients/patients even when
it's not part of their job.
EMP
4.34
3%
+.01
+.08
7. Employees’ actions support this
organization’s mission and values.
EMP
4.11
4%
+.01
+.06
24. Physicians and staff work well
together.
ORG
4.03
6%
+.01
+.13
14. There is a climate of trust within
my work unit.
EMP
3.73
18%
+.01
+.01
47
Items with Greatest Decline
Diff. from:
GREATEST DECLINE Compared to
Greenville Hospital System 2010
Domain
2011
GHS
%
Unfav
2010
GHS
Natl
HC Avg
29. My pay is fair compared to other
healthcare employers in this area.
ORG
3.46
22%
-.31
+.06
21. I am satisfied with my benefits.
ORG
3.34
26%
-.19
-.33
31. My work unit is adequately
staffed.
ORG
3.41
27%
-.17
+.02
30. The employee incentive (bonus)
encourages me to do a better job.
ORG
3.65
18%
-.14
N/A
26. Information from this survey will
be used to make improvements.
ORG
3.78
12%
-.14
+.09
48
Open-ended Comment Items
What do you like best about working for this organization?
Percent of total comments by theme:
4,904
respondents
provided
feedback
63% of
respondents
provided
feedback
The people
26
Quality leadership
18
Outstanding patient care provided here
17
Teamwork
10
Opportunities for learning and career advancement
10
My job
49
8
Open-ended Comment Items
Please provide one suggestion on how to make this organization a
better place to work.
Percent of total comments by theme:
5,200
respondents
provided
feedback
66% of
respondents
provided
feedback
Improve pay and benefits
29
Address staffing issues
18
Promote leadership development
11
Open lines of communication
9
Update the facility, equipment, and technology
8
Respect and listen to employees
7
50
Work Unit Results
(Tiers 1, 2 and 3)
51
Morehead’s Tier Classifications
High Survey Scores:
minimal action planning
activities
Average Survey Scores:
action planning activities
typically required
Typical Expectations:
Maintain Tier 1 status, assist
Tier 3 and Tier 2 managers
with action planning best
practices
Typical Expectations: Achieve
Tier 1 status through action plan
development/implementation
Typical Expectations: Achieve
Tier 2 status through action plan
development/implementation and
support by senior leadership and
HR/OD
Low Survey Scores:
significant action
planning activities
52
Greenville Health System
Tier Results
Historical
Tier Movement
60%
46%
40%
40%
36%
20%
18%
0%
107 WU
39%
21%
123 WU
217 WU
Tier 3
235 WU
Tier 2
276 WU
230 WU
Tier 1
2010
Tier 1 = Power Items Score™ ≥ 4.15
Tier 2 = Power Items Score™ ≥ 3.80 and < 4.15
Tier 3 = Power Items Score™ < 3.80
53
2011
A Few Last Observations
54
GHS Employee Survey Results
Five-Year Trend
100
99th
91st
80
72nd
60
62nd
40
20
16th
0
2006/7
Press Ganey
2008
2009
2010
2011
Percentile Ranking
55
Town Hall Surveys Offer a Snapshot
Between Annual Surveys
Town Hall Survey Results Compared to Selected Questions from the Annual
Employee Opinion Survey
2010 Annual
Emp Survey
May
2010
Aug
2010
Nov
2010
Feb
2011
2011 Annual
Emp Survey
Confidence in Senior Management’s leadership
4.03
402
4.20
4.12
4.21
3.93
Different levels communicate effectively
3.44
3.55
3.54
3.36
3.59
3.42
Proud to tell people I work for this organization
4.43
4.39
4.47
4.39
4.43
4.36
Recommend GHS to family and friends
4.44
4.41
4.56
4.45
---
4.42
Would work at GHS three years from now
4.47
4.44
4.61
4.44
4.46
4.40
Stay if offered job elsewhere for slightly higher pay
3.87
4.08
4.29
4.05
4.04
3.75
Healthcare employer of choice in this area
4.32
4.38
4.56
4.40
4.44
4.26
Recommend GHS as a good place to work
4.29
4.35
4.46
4.34
4.37
4.19
Overall, I am a satisfied employee
4.20
4.26
4.37
4.22
4.28
4.09
Survey Question
Higher scores among Town Hall Attendees.
56
A Theory and a Quick
Small Group Discussion
Our Theory
Employees who attend Town Hall Meetings are generally
more engaged and have a better understanding of what’s
happening at GHS.
57
A Theory and a Quick
Small Group Discussion
Our Theory
Employees who attend Town Hall Meetings are generally
more engaged and have a better understanding of what’s
happening at GHS.
Discussion
Does this theory make sense to you?
How could you help generate more participation in Town
Hall Meetings?
Please record you thoughts on the Town Hall Survey Question 4.3 (additional
comments)
58
Next Steps
• Departmental Meetings
– Zero-In on your work unit’s results
– Develop department-specific action plans
• System-Level Action Planning
– Detailed review of system results by Senior
Leadership
– System-level action plan will be developed to include
planned and new initiatives
59
Questions
Please Complete the
TOWN HALL
Survey
61
Please Complete the Survey
Please complete BOTH sides of survey form
62
Answers to many of your questions are in the Town Hall Q&A handout.
Acknowledge
Introduce
Duration
Explain
THANK YOU!
63

similar documents