The Difference Between “Reduce” and “Prevent” When it Comes to Process Thinking
In many healthcare organizations, you often see lofty strategic initiatives that are listed as reducing harm. For example, these objectives are listed as “Reduce CLABSI by 50%” or “Reduce Unplanned Readmissions by 25%.”
The words used in these statements can often represent an immature process and analytics mindset. In organizations that are more mature in their process thinking, these statements use a different verb than “reduce,” instead they use a verb like “prevent.”
This subtle distinction is important. The starting point of analysis and process mapping is further upstream when the goal is to “prevent.” Consequently, people start looking for root causes and identifying opportunities in the process to prevent the defect from occurring in the first place. For example, identifying opportunities to adjust care plans to prevent the unplanned readmissions while the patient is still being treated.
Organizations using the verb “prevent” in their strategic goals have a measurement system established that signals when a defect occurs. As an example, these organizations know which patients were readmitted yesterday. They have processes in place to consume and react to the signals. By reducing the awareness time, they have reduced the delay in knowing when the defect occurred and the knowledge that it occurred. Their daily safety huddles have defined what defects are occurring, standardized action processes to get at root causes, and have quick cycles of PDSA to prevent the next one from occurring.
Strategic verbs are important. We recommend you review your strategic objectives. Are you describing what you really want to achieve?
Brian Veara, Program Director
Catalysis
Mike Spencer says:
Leave a Reply