NEUROLOGY PANEL REPORT1

INTRODUCTION

This panel was established in early 1990 to assist the IOM study committee in developing a VA physician requirements methodology that successfully incorporated the specialty of neurology. The panel, consisting of five neurologists, met twice during the year and participated in other efforts to advise the study committee on appropriate physician staffing for this specialty. The chairman of the panel was a member of the study committee; the panel roster is attached. A detailed description of the analysis process followed by this and the other seven specialty and clinical program panels is found in the “Overview ” to this section of Volume II.

The following report summarizes the analyses conducted by the panel and its recommendations to the study committee.

EXPERT JUDGMENT APPROACHES TO DETERMINING PHYSICIAN REQUIREMENTS IN NEUROLOGY
The Detailed Staffing Exercise (DSE) Approach
Initial Efforts

A central purpose of the panel's first meeting, held in March 1990, was to help determine whether the expert judgment approach to staffing being developed by the study committee could be applied validly to neurology. The focus of this analysis was the initial draft of a physician staffing instrument,

1  

The initial draft of this report was prepared by Nancy Kader, Staff Officer to the Neurology Panel during the conduct of the study. This final report was prepared by the editors of this Volume.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II NEUROLOGY PANEL REPORT1 INTRODUCTION This panel was established in early 1990 to assist the IOM study committee in developing a VA physician requirements methodology that successfully incorporated the specialty of neurology. The panel, consisting of five neurologists, met twice during the year and participated in other efforts to advise the study committee on appropriate physician staffing for this specialty. The chairman of the panel was a member of the study committee; the panel roster is attached. A detailed description of the analysis process followed by this and the other seven specialty and clinical program panels is found in the “Overview ” to this section of Volume II. The following report summarizes the analyses conducted by the panel and its recommendations to the study committee. EXPERT JUDGMENT APPROACHES TO DETERMINING PHYSICIAN REQUIREMENTS IN NEUROLOGY The Detailed Staffing Exercise (DSE) Approach Initial Efforts A central purpose of the panel's first meeting, held in March 1990, was to help determine whether the expert judgment approach to staffing being developed by the study committee could be applied validly to neurology. The focus of this analysis was the initial draft of a physician staffing instrument, 1   The initial draft of this report was prepared by Nancy Kader, Staff Officer to the Neurology Panel during the conduct of the study. This final report was prepared by the editors of this Volume.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II which required the expert to assess the time (and hence FTEE) required by neurologists to render patient care, work with residents, and perform other tasks at the VA medical center. To test this approach, staffing instruments were constructed for three actual VAMCs. Each facility was portrayed as consisting of a set of patient care areas (PCAs), where direct patient care and resident training occur. For each PCA, data were presented on the volume of patient workload expected, the number of residents available, and the overall availability of nursing and support staff. The critical question with respect to each PCA focuses on the amount of neurologist time required, in total, to meet these VA mission-related demands in the course of a typical workday. Each PCA was analyzed in turn, and total neurologist FTEE for the facility was computed. Additional questions at the end of the instrument elicited FTEE requirements for weekend coverage, special procedures, and non-VA physician consultants. In the course of this first meeting the panel reached several initial conclusions about the assumptions that should underlie the development of subsequent physician staffing instruments: Education of staff and residents is carried out mostly in the clinical setting, often as part of daily rounds. However, education time is not always documented properly in the VA's cost distribution report (CDR) for the neurology service. It is often allocated under the cost center for medicine. Insufficient nurse and support staff is a major factor in reducing the efficiency of neurologists and may reduce the quality of care. Physicians generally work 50 or more hours weekly, but 40 was used in estimating requirements in order to be consistent across panels. The amount of research varies by the individual physician and is sometimes obscured by university exchanges. Research per physician cannot be inferred on the basis of the direct patient care requirements. Vacation, leave, and sick time are not currently considered in physician requirements, and might be derived via a “multiplier” applied to the direct care requirements. Although there was a great deal of debate about the issue of night and weekend coverage, panelists generally agreed that it is usually provided by “house officers” who are not purchased specifically by the neurology service, or else by residents. Therefore no extra staff physician FTEE would be allocated specifically for these off-hours. The number of patients currently receiving neurology services is not an indicator of need, since a current lack of physician staffing in this specialty discourages many patients from presenting for treatment. Nonetheless, the panel

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II agreed to continue estimating physician requirements for the actual volume of workload anticipated, in keeping with the overall philosophy of the larger study. The panelists believed that, in many cases, neurologists should have primary responsibility for administering the spinal cord injury (SCI) service and performing electromyocardiogram (EMG) procedures; however, it was recognized that physiatrists typically play this role in the VA at present. Hence, it would be assumed that neurologists would serve largely as consultants in the delivery of SCI and EMG procedures. At this first meeting the panel also reviewed and evaluated the initial versions of the empirically based physician staffing model. A special concern, identified early on, was whether the VA's CDR properly captured the productive contributions of neurologists at the VAMCs. Following the first round of meetings for all eight specialty and clinical program panels, there was convened (in May 1990) Joint Meeting I involving the study committee, data and methodology panel, and VA liaison committee. Progress to date on both the expert judgment and empirical model approaches was evaluated. After reviewing the reports submitted by each panel, the study committee recommended that work proceed on developing a more internally consistent and comprehensive instrument for determining physician requirements by expert judgment. A broadly similar approach should be adopted by each panel, but the instrument for each specialty or program area should be tailored to its specific characteristics. DSE: Overall Rationale For the panel's second meeting, held in June 1990, three additional VAMCs (denoted here and in the committee report [Volume I] as VAMCs I, II, and III) were analyzed using a revised version of the initial staffing instrument. This new instrument—later termed the Detailed Staffing Exercise (DSE) —was developed on the basis of the panel's critique delivered at the first meeting, plus general instructions from the study committee at the conclusion of Joint Meeting I. As before, each DSE was specific to an actual VAMC. This revised instrument described each PCA in greater detail than before, including more specific information on the VA patient population (e.g., admission rate, length of stay, and DRG mix). The ambulatory care clinics at each VAMC were now described in much greater detail.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II In general, the underlying concept behind the DSE is to provide information in sufficient detail about the VAMC that the respondent can assess physician staffing requirements almost as if he/she were reviewing data at the facility. Instructions and Assumptions To illustrate how the DSE works, a completed version of the instrument is presented as Exhibit 1 of the “Overview” to this section of Volume II. While constructed specifically for determining internist FTEE requirements, this DSE is nearly identical structurally to the one developed for neurology. As indicated in that Exhibit 1, each DSE has an A and B section. Section A elicits the amount of time, in hours, required to provide quality care for individual patient care areas (PCAs) of the hospital. For each PCA, information is provided on the volume and DRG mix of workload, number of residents by postgraduate year, number of nonphysician practitioners (e.g., nurse practitioners, physician assistants), and general information about the adequacy of nursing and support staff. Section B focuses on physician activities not addressed in Section A, such as night and weekend coverage, non-patient-care-related activities off the PCA, and leaves of absence. The Panel Responds Before the second meeting, panelists were mailed DSEs for VAMCs I and II; these were completed independently and returned prior to the meeting. The staff compiled these results on a spreadsheet showing the high, low, mean, and median responses. At the second panel meeting, these DSEs were discussed thoroughly to determine whether panelists were using the same assumptions and to allow members to discuss the underlying reasoning behind these calculations. Following this, the panelists were asked to reassess physician requirements in medicine at VAMCs I and II, again working independently. Then the actual level of neurologist staffing at each VAMC, as reported in the CDR, was displayed for comparison. After discussion of actual versus DSE-based staffing, a third exercise was distributed pertaining now to VAMC III (another actual facility), and the panel worked as a group to estimate staffing requirements. Following the assessment, the actual CDR numbers for VAMC in were displayed for comparison. During

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II the group discussion, the panel was asked to reflect on whether certain “rules of thumb” were used (perhaps implicitly) to help quantify staffing requirements.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II The Staffing Algorithm Development Instrument (SADI) Approach SADI: Overall Rationale Following the second round of panel meetings, the study committee initiated a set of “postmeeting” activities to assist the specialty and clinical program panels in arriving at consensus positions regarding the most appropriate methodology for VA physician staffing. These recommendations should be regarded as being advisory to the committee. A central feature of these activities was the introduction of the Staffing Algorithm Development Instrument (SADI). The overall purpose of the SADI was to help test, build upon, and ultimately strengthen the rules of thumb for staffing that emerged from the second meetings of all eight panels. It represents an alternative, more compact means to derive physician requirements, by specialty or program, for any given VAMC. Instructions and Assumptions Like the DSE, the SADI has two sections, A and B, which focus on patient care and nonpatient care activities, respectively. In Section A, the respondent is asked to estimate the amount of physician time required to complete a number of patient care functions and tasks under varying assumptions about the availability of residents and nonphysician practitioners. In section B, the respondent must determine the amount of physician time that should be allocated to research, classroom instruction, continuing education, administra-tion, and leaves of absence. To derive physician requirements for a given VAMC, the estimated physician hours for patient care and nonpatient care activities are summed, then converted to FTEE under the assumption that 40 hours per week translates into one FTEE. (Obviously, if this 40-hour-per-week equivalency assumption is replaced by one reflecting the average workweek of full-time VA staff physicians, the SADI-derived FTEE estimates would change accordingly; this is true also for the DSE estimates.) Presented in Figure 1 of this report is the neurology SADI, complete with the panel's median estimates for physician task times. A detailed, self-contained, illustration of how the SADI can be applied to determine the number of physicians required at a given VAMC is found in Exhibit 3 of the “Overview” to this section of Volume II. This example happens to focus on internist requirements at VAMC I; the application of SADI to determining

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II neurology FTEE at a given facility proceeds in a virtually identical fashion. A careful study of the example reveals the type of facility-specific data needed to implement any SADI. Although the information requirements of the DSE are greater, both of these expert judgment approaches require data (e.g., on frequency of consults across PCAs) not presently collected in the VA system. EMPIRICALLY BASED APPROACHES TO DETERMINING PHYSICIAN STAFFING IN NEUROLOGY In its two meetings and a subsequent conference call, the panel evaluated alternative specifications of the empirically based physician staffing models (EBPSM) that pertained expressly to neurology. As noted in chapter 4 of the study committee's report (Volume I), there are two variants of the EBPSM: the production function (PF) and inverse production function (IPF). Production Functions Among the 14 VAMC patient care areas (PCAs) defined for analysis in this study, two were of particular concern to the panel: inpatient neurology and ambulatory neurology. While the derivation of total physician FTEE in neurology at a VAMC via the PF model requires an analysis of internist FTEE in all PCAs, this panel (like the others) restricted its focus to the PCAs where the neurologist is the “dominant ” physician specialty. The final versions of the inpatient and ambulatory neurology PF models, as developed in conjunction with the study's data and methodology panel, are presented in Table 2.A. Inverse Production Function In the early fall of 1990 (following its two meetings), the panel was asked to evaluate an IPF model estimated for physicians in the neurology service. The final version of the neurology IPF is shown in Table 2.B.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II EBPSM Assessment Neither the PF nor IPF variant of the EBPSM is acceptable for determining neurologist requirements at present because the VA data used in their estimation is flawed in at least two significant respects. First, these data (of necessity) reflect current neurologist FTEE-neurologist workload relationships, and these may reflect less-than-adequate care in those VAMCs (and there are many) where neurology is understaffed. Second, in more than half of all VAMCs, there is no neurology service; when this occurs, the existing neurologist FTEE is in fact attributed to the medicine service, leading to biased observations for both the NEU_MD and MED_MD variables. Between the two variants, the IPF is preferred because NEU_MD did not merit entry into most PF equations, based on the criterion of statistical significance. Hence, adoption of the PF approach would lead to a systematic undercalculation of total neurologist FTEE for patient care and resident education at the VAMC. These criticisms are discussed further in the final section of this report. PHYSICIAN STAFFING RESULTS FROM APPLICATION OF EMPIRICALLY BASED AND EXPERT JUDGMENT APPROACHES In Table 1 are alternative estimates of physician requirements in neurology at VAMCs I, II, and III in FY 1989 as derived from: the VA's cost distribution report (CDR), the PF and IPF variants of the EBPSM, the DSE (from the second panel meeting), the SADI (in both its “ pure” and modified application format), and a mail survey of panel members conducted just prior to Joint Meeting II (held September 7–9, 1990). The most striking conclusion from Table 1.A. is that these three VA facilities are understaffed in neurology by virtually every approach put forward to estimate physician requirements. With one exception (the Modified SADI approach applied to VAMC II), all empirically based and expert opinion approaches lead to total FTEE estimates for neurologists that exceed the levels recorded in the CDR. (The latter is not likely to undercount actual neurologist FTEE at these facilities, since VAMCs I and II have a neurology cost center, and the study staff ascertained by direct communication with VAMC III that the most appropriate neurologist count there for FY 1989 was, on balance, 1.0 FTEE.)

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II A second conclusion from Table 1.A. is that both expert judgment approaches lead generally to a higher recommended total FTEE level than either empirically based approach. The panel's overall assessment of appropriate neurologist staffing at the three facilities—as indexed by the median response to the survey conducted prior to Joint Meeting II—was much closer to the estimates derived from the DSE and (pure) SADI approaches. On the other hand, Table 1.B. indicates there is little systematic difference across these approaches in the recommended neurologist FTEE for direct care and resident education only—at least for these three VAMCs. Hence, the trends noted above for total FTEE would appear to be largely attributable to how the approaches assign FTEE to those activities not reflected in Table 1.B.: research, continuing education, leaves of absence, purchased coverage for nights and weekends, and consultation by non-VA neurologists. EXTERNAL NORMS Data on physician staffing in neurology were collected from external (to the VA) health care organizations in order to determine whether productivity performance norms that may exist elsewhere in the public and private sectors could be applied usefully to determine appropriate neurologist staffing in the VA. In addition, the study staff attempted to obtain “internal” VA guidelines on physician staffing in neurology. However, no such guidelines were available. The Department of Defense (DoD) provided perhaps the most useful specific criteria since it utilizes full-time physician equivalents much like the VA; however the DoD patient population is generally younger and includes a higher percentage of women and children. DoD defines physician performance levels on the basis of the number of outpatient and inpatient visits rendered; the standard varies from 160 to 180 visits per month depending on the availability of teaching staff. Also considered is the number of inpatient days of care provided, where a standard of 95 days of care per month is considered the DoD norm. A different criterion applies if the workload number conflicts with the number of residents, since it is assumed that residents need supervision regardless of workload. Several panel members obtained productivity information from neurologists working either in private practice or in a private hospital or university medical center. The contribution of neurologists in these settings was rarely measured in terms of FTEE; more typically, these physicians serve as “faculty” or private practitioners whose time spent at a facility and workload production have to be

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II estimated informally. Most facilities were able to provide annual workload, expressed in admissions, discharges, or outpatient visits. Summarized in Table 3 are the results from applying the norms derived from DoD and these private-sector providers to calculate the implied levels of neurologist FTEE at VAMCs I, II, and III. The logic behind these calculations is presented and illustrated in the “Overview” to this section of Volume II (see “External Norms”). The FTEE estimates derived based on staffing standards at university and other teaching hospitals reflect in part the substantial commitment of such institutions to education and research, as well as patient care: the DoD-based estimates, on the other hand, are presumably driven by patient care requirements only. The panel also investigated data from several other sources that had proven useful in developing staffing norms for internal medicine: The Indian Health Service, the American Medical Association, the New York Health and Hospitals Corporation, and a large health maintenance organization. However, none of these organizations had explicit criteria, or available data, relating neurologist FTEE to patient workload. In considering the usefulness of the external norms, the panel noted several points: Hospitals employ many different workload measures, e.g., admissions, discharges, annual bed-days of care, or average daily census, but none uses the VA's concept of the weighted work unit (WWU); this complicates comparisons across facilities. Most of these staffing data do not represent “norms” in the sense of being explicit standards consciously developed by the organization; rather these data simply reflect existing staffing patterns as they have evolved at the institution. There is no universal definition of an FTEE. Most hospitals have not systematically analyzed the relationship between physician requirements and some defined unit of workload. Consequently, many of the numbers provided to staff were informally produced and cannot be validated in a written or computerized form. A major problem in comparing neurology staffing patterns is that many hospitals do not have a distinct neurology department; in such cases, neurology is considered to be part of internal medicine. Furthermore, many patients who should be managed by a neurologist are treated primarily by internists, perhaps with a neurology consult, and thus are considered to be medicine patients.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II CONCLUSIONS The panel endorses the study committee's Reconciliation Strategy (the “disaggregated weighted-average” approach) as a framework for computing physician requirements in neurology. Regarding the FTEE components of this strategy, the panel recommends the following: Patient Care, Resident Education, and Administration Neurology FTEE for these activities should be calculated from an expert-judgment-based staffing model, not from an empirically based model that relies on current VA staffing data. Both the SADI and the DSE are acceptable expert judgment models. Because the DSE provides a richer array of details about workload and other facility-specific factors, it is arguably closer to a “gold standard” methodology than the SADI. Yet, for determining VA neurologist FTEE over the long term, the panel favors the SADI. Because it is a generic rather than a facility-specific construct, it will be more economical to apply on a systemwide basis than the DSE. The SADI's task-time estimates can be periodically reevaluated and updated as new data become available. The neurology version of the SADI is ready for its initial systemwide application; this should proceed without delay. Neither the PF nor the IPF version of the EBPSM is acceptable at present because the VA data used in their estimation is flawed in at least two significant respects. First, these data (of necessity) reflect current input-output relationships, which are skewed because (in the panel's view) neurology is seriously understaffed in many VAMCs. That is, the current data reflect the status quo, and that is an inadequate basis for drawing policy conclusions about appropriate staffing in neurology. Second, in more than half of all VAMCs there is no neurology service (though one or more neurologists at such facilities may perform consultations on other services). In these cases, the existing neurology FTEE may be attributed, in all or in part, to the medicine service; when this occurs, both the NEU_MD and the MED_MD variables in the PF and the IPF models will reflect some measurement error, which will lead to biased coefficient estimates in the EBPSM. In addition, the panel has concerns that the outpatient workload

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II FIGURE 1 The Staffing Algorithm Development Instrument (SADI) for Neurology: The Complete Instrument with a Statistical Summary of the Panel's Assessments INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS (Abbreviated) The purpose of the SADI is to gather the data needed to construct, test, formalize, and enhance the algorithms and rules of thumb for staffing that emerged from prior meetings of each specialty and clinical program panel. The ultimate intention is to develop algorithms which could be applied to estimate staffing requirements at VA medical centers (VAMCs), presumably duplicating the results specialty and clinical program panelists themselves would have derived. Section A of the SADI requests time estimates in some cases by workload unit. In other cases, it requests time estimates by major job elements (tasks). These elements had previously been indicated by some panel members as accounting for the bulk of the work of VA neurologists. For the latter cases we seek your estimates of how physician requirements in your specialty vary with respect to such variables as the volume of patients and the availability of residents and nonphysician practitioners. By systematically varying the levels of workload and personnel, we hope to infer from your numerical responses the implicit formulas you used to relate physician time to these variables as well as the nature of the relationship between workload and staffing, e.g., linear or nonlinear. Section B seeks responses to a series of questions for the time spent in activities other than direct patient care. Instructions: In Section A, for each cell of each table, please estimate the number of physician hours required from the Neurology Service to deliver good-quality care under the specified circumstances. Section B is self-explanatory.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II SECTION A: PATIENT CARE ACTIVITIES ADMISSIONS Please fill in the average time in hours required by a staff physician in your service to accomplish an admission work-up, either with or without the assistance of a resident in your service. Chart 1   Time per Admission Work-Up without Resident Time per Admission Work-Up with Resident High 2.50 1.50 Low 1.00 0.50 Mean 2.00 1.08 Median 2.25 1.25 ROUTINE DAILY PATIENT CARE For each workload factor and alternative average daily census (ADC) level below, please fill in the average number of physician hours required from the Neurology Service. Keep in mind that the daily rounds do not include new admission work-ups, since they are covered in Chart 1. Chart 2 Assume No Residents Neurology Ward Average LOS=7   ADC 1 ADC 5 ADC 10 ADC 15 ADC 20 ADC 25 Daily Rounds High 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50   Low 0.08 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50   Mean 0.33 1.33 1.80 2.17 2.75 3.17   Median 0.42 1.00 1.75 2.42 2.75 3.25

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II Neurology Ward Average LOS=7   ADC 1 ADC 5 ADC 10 ADC 15 ADC 20 ADC 25 Charting, Phone, and Paperwork High 0.25 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50   Low 0.08 0.50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75   Mean 0.27 0.55 1.00 1.33 1.67 2.00   Median 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.87 Patient and Family Contacts plus Teaching High 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.50   Low 0.05 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25   Mean 0.27 0.45 0.75 1.33 1.08 1.50   Median 0.27 0.42 0.73 1.00 1.08 1.38 Supervision and Teaching (Residents/Staff) High 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25   Low 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00   Mean 0.12 0.28 0.38 0.55 0.57 0.67   Median 0.00 0.28 0.42 0.62 0.62 0.75 Overall Mean Time 1.00 2.07 3.45 5.00 6.00 7.20 Overall Median Time 0.50 2.27 4.00 5.12 6.05 7.15

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II Chart 3   For ADC of 10 or less, assume one PGY 2 or 3 resident. For ADC greater than 15, assume two PGY 2 or 3 residents. Neurology Ward Average LOS=7   ADC 1 ADC 5 ADC 10 ADC 15 ADC 20 ADC 25 Daily Rounds High 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50   Low 0.08 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25   Mean 0.35 0.82 1.08 1.25 1.83 2.08   Median 0.42 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.63 1.87 Charting, Phone, and Paperwork High 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.67 2.00   Low 0.08 0.25 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.75   Mean 0.20 0.38 0.75 0.92 1.23 1.42   Median 0.13 0.30 0.67 1.00 1.25 1.50 Patient and Family Contacts plus Teaching High 0.50 0.75 0.75 1.50 1.00 1.25   Low 0.08 0.08 0.25 0.33 0.42 0.50   Mean 0.27 0.33 0.45 0.58 0.72 0.87   Median 0.20 0.25 0.42 0.50 0.75 0.87 Supervision and Teaching (Residents/Staff) High 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50   Low 0.08 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50   Mean 0.30 0.43 0.87 1.25 1.50 1.92   Median 0.33 0.50 0.87 1.25 1.50 2.00 Overall Mean Time 1.08 2.00 3.00 4.08 5.25 6.38 Overall Median Time 1.08 1.87 3.00 4.08 5.25 6.38

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II TIME PER INITIAL CONSULTATION OFF YOUR PCA Fill in the average time in hours required by a staff physician in your service for each initial (new) consult on another service, noting the presence or absence of a resident in your own service. (When the resident is present, assume that he/she is performing the consult under the supervision of an attending physician.) Chart 4   Time per Consult without Resident Time per Consult with Resident Consultation off your PCA High Low Mean Median High Low Mean Median Medicine 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.33 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.70 Surgery 1.50 1.00 1.17 1.25 0.75 0.50 0.62 0.62 Nursing Home 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.55 0.50 Intermediate Care 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.92 0.75 0.42 0.53 0.50 Rehab Medicine 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.92 0.75 0.42 0.53 0.50 Psychiatry 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.33 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.70

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II TIME PER FOLLOW-UP VISIT OFF YOUR PCA Fill in the average time in hours required by a staff physician in your service for each follow-up consultation visit on another service, noting the presence or absence of a resident from your service. Chart 5   Time per Consult without Resident Time per Consult with Resident Consultation off your PA High Low Mean Median High Low Mean Median Medicine 0.33 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.42 0.17 0.25 0.22 Surgery 0.33 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.42 0.17 0.25 0.22 Nursing Home 0.33 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.42 0.08 0.23 0.22 Intermediate Care 0.33 0.17 0.27 0.28 0.42 0.08 0.23 0.22 Rehab Medicine 0.33 0.17 0.27 0.28 0.42 0.08 0.23 0.22 Psychiatry 0.33 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.42 0.17 0.25 0.22 SPECIAL PROCEDURES Please fill in the average time in hours required by a staff physician in your service for each of the special procedures listed on the left, noting the presence or absence of a resident. Chart 6   Time per Test without Resident Time per Test with Resident Special Procedures High Low Mean Median High Low Mean Median EEG 0.83 0.33 0.47 0.42 1.00 0.25 0.52 0.42 Evoked Potential 1.00 0.42 0.63 0.62 0.75 0.33 0.52 0.50 EMG 2.00 1.00 1.37 1.50 2.00 0.50 1.50 1.75 Others (Specify)   1.00   1.00

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II SECTION B: NON-PATIENT-CARE TIME Part 1. The activities listed below generally do not occur every day, but may be time-consuming when looked at over a longer period, such as a week or month. List the time in hours that you would add to each physician's average workday to allow for the types of non-patient-care work listed below: Chart 7 Assume the amount of research accomplished at this VAMC is:   High1 Medium1 Low1 Education of Residents (didactic, classroom, not on the PCA) High 1.00 1.67 1.00   Low 1.00 1.00 0.50   Mean 1.33 1.17 0.67   Median 1.25 1.00 0.05 Administration by Chief (time required to manage your whole service by a Chief and/or Assistant Chief) High 1.00 2.00 2.00   Low 1.50 1.00 0.50   Mean 1.75 1.50 0.67   Median 1.75 1.50 0.50 Administration by Others (time required for individual physicians) High 1.00 1.00 0.50   Low 0.50 0.42 0.27   Mean 0.67 0.60 0.50   Median 0.58 0.50 0.37 Hospital-Related Activities (Mortality and Morbidity, quality assurance, staff meetings) High 1.42 1.00 0.75   Low 0.75 0.50 0.25   Mean 0.87 0.68 0.53   Median 0.87 0.63 0.58 1Examples of research level by total amount of funding (VA plus non-VA) in FY 1988. High: e.g.; VAMC I with $8.8 million in total funding; Medium: e.g.; VAMC II with $2.75 million in total funding; Low: e.g.; VAMC III with about $176,000 in total funding.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II Assume the amount of research accomplished at this VAMC is:   Total Hours per Average Weekday:   Overall Mean Overall Median For Chief2 High 1.75 1.75   Medium 1.50 1.50   Low 1.25 1.33 For Non-Chief Physician High 3.17 3.12   Medium 2.42 2.42   Low 1.67 1.78 1Examples of research level by total amount of funding (VA plus non-VA) in FY 1988. High: e.g.; VAMC I with $8.8 million in total funding; Medium: e.g.; VAMC II with $2.75 million in total funding; Low: e.g.; VAMC III with about $176,000 in total funding. 2Assume that Chief does not participate significantly in the Education of Residents and Hospital-Related Activities; SADI users may easily modify this assumption.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II Part 2. In order to determine the actual staffing in this hospital, the number of FTEE must be adjusted to allow for CME, research, and any off-time required. What do you believe to be the appropriate percentage of time the “average” (typical) member of your service should devote to each of the following categories of non-patient-care-related activities? Chart 8 Assume the amount of research accomplished at this VAMC is:   High1 Medium1 Low1 Continuing Education High 10.0 10.0 10.0   Low 5.0 5.0 2.0   Mean 9.5 7.5 6.0   Median 8.0 8.0 7.0 Research (off the PCA) High 60.0 40.0 10.0   Low 25.0 20.0 5.0   Mean 40.0 26.0 7.0   Median 33.0 23.0 10.0 Vacation, Administrative Leave, Sick Leave, Other High 25.0 23.0 20.0   Low 8.0 8.0 8.0   Mean 13.0 13.0 12.0   Median 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Percentage of Time Overall Mean 60.0 46.0 26.0 Overall Median 62.0 46.0 23.0 1Examples of research level by total amount of funding (VA plus non-VA) in FY 1988. High: e.g.; VAMC I with $8.8 million in total funding; Medium: e.g.; VAMC II with $2.75 million in total funding; Low: e.g.; VAMC III with about $176,000 in total funding.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE Committee to Develop Methods Useful to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Estimating Its Physician Requirements Neurology Panel Roster ROBERT J.JOYNT (Chair),*† Vice President and Vice Provost for Health Affairs, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York †Member of the study committee. BENJAMIN R.BROOKS, Chief, Neurology Service, Madison VA Medical Center, Madison, Wisconsin MARK DYKEN, Professor and Chairman, Department of Neurology, Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis JOSEPH GREEN, Chairman, Department of Medical/Surgical Neurology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock JOHN F.KURTZKE, Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Neurology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. Nancy Kader, Staff Officer *Member of the Institute of Medicine.

OCR for page 207
Physician Staffing for the VA: VOLUME II This page in the original is blank.