Popular quality improvement tools such as Six Sigma and Lean Systems (SS/L) claim to provide health care managers the opportunity to improve health care quality on the basis of sound methodology and data. However, it is unclear whether these 2 quality improvement tools actually improve health care quality. The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review to assess the empirical evidence relating SS/L to improved clinical outcomes, processes of care, and financial performance of health care organizations. The authors identified 177 articles on SS/L published in the last 10 years. However, only 34 of them reported any outcomes of the SS/L projects studied, and less than one-third of these articles included statistical analyses to test for significant changes in outcomes. This review demonstrates that there are significant gaps in the SS/L health care quality improvement literature and very weak evidence that SS/L improve health care quality.

Background. Emergency medical services (EMS) agencies transport a significant majority of patients with low acuity and non-emergent conditions to local emergency departments (ED), affecting the entire emergency care system’s capacity and performance. Opportunities exist for alternative models that integrate technology, telehealth, and more appropriately aligned patient navigation. While a limited number of programs have evolved recently, no empirical evidence exists for their efficacy. This research describes the development and comparative effectiveness of one large urban program. Methods. “Blinded for Peer Review” EMS initiated the Emergency Telehealth and Navigation (ETHAN) program in 2014. ETHAN combines telehealth, social services, and alternative transportation to navigate primary care related patients away from the ED where possible. Using a case-control study design with multiple outcome variables, we describe the program and compare differences in effectiveness measures relative to the control group. Results. During the first 12 months, 5,570 patients received the intervention. We found a 76% decrease in ambulance transports to the ED with the intervention (18% vs. 74%, P<.001). EMS productivity (median time from EMS notification to unit back in service) was 44 minutes faster for the ETHAN group (39 vs. 83 minutes, median). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality or patient satisfaction. Conclusions. We found that mobile technology-driven delivery models are effective at reducing unnecessary ED ambulance transports and increasing EMS unit productivity. This provides support for broader EMS mobile integrated health programs in other regions.

There has been very little use of telehealth in pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS), yet the potential exists for this technology to transform the current delivery model. In this study, we explore the costs and benefits of one large telehealth EMS initiative. Using a case-control study design and both micro- and gross-costing data from the Houston Fire Department EMS electronic patient care record system, we conducted a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) comparing costs with potential savings associated with patients treated through a telehealth-enabled intervention. The intervention consisted of telehealth-based consultation between the 911 patient and an EMS physician, to evaluate and triage the necessity for patient transport to a hospital emergency department (ED). Patients with non-urgent, primary care-related conditions were then scheduled and transported by alternative means to an affiliated primary care clinic. We measured CBA as both total cost savings and cost per ED visit averted, in US Dollars ($USD). In total, 5570 patients were treated over the first full 12 months with a telehealth-enabled care model. We found a 6.7% absolute reduction in potentially medically unnecessary ED visits, and a 44-minute reduction in total ambulance back-in-service times. The average cost for a telehealth patient was $167, which was a statistically significantly $103 less than the control group (p < .0001). The programme produced a $928,000 annual cost savings from the societal perspective, or $2468 cost savings per ED visit averted (benefit). Patient care enabled by telehealth in a pre-hospital environment, is a more cost effective alternative compared to the traditional EMS ‘treat and transport to ED’ model.

Background: The access to and growth of percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ) has not been fully explored with regard to geographic equity and need. Economic factors and timely access to primary PCI provide the impetus for growth in PCI centers, and this is balanced by volume standards and the benefits of regionalized care. Methods and Results: Geospatial and statistical analyses were used to model capacity, growth, and access of PCI hospitals relative to population density and myocardial infarction ( MI ) prevalence at the state level. Longitudinal data were obtained for 2003–2011 from the A merican H ospital A ssociation, the U . S . Census, and the C enters for D isease C ontrol and P revention (CDC) with geographical modeling to map PCI locations. The number of PCI centers has grown 21.2% over the last 8 years, with 39% of all hospitals having interventional cardiology capabilities. During the same time, the US population has grown 8.3%, from 217 million to 235 million, and MI prevalence rates have decreased from 4.0% to 3.7%. The most densely concentrated states have a ratio of 8.1 to 12.1 PCI facilities per million of population with significant variability in both MI prevalence and average distance between PCI facilities. Conclusions: Over the last decade, the growth rate for PCI centers is 1.5× that of the population growth, while MI prevalence is decreasing. This has created geographic imbalances and access barriers with excess PCI centers relative to need in some regions and inadequate access in others.