建構一套評估與持續改進系統來提昇醫院自費醫療服務之質與量-以手術後疼痛處置為研究對象

Construct an evaluation and continuous improvement system to upgrade the quality and quantity of self-payment medical services– Evidence from post-operative pain control service in the hospital

陳李魁(Li-Kuei Chen)

指導教授 ： 李書行

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/會計與管理決策組/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.01871

摘要

當科技快速進步，醫療服務也持續推陳出新，各種能減緩病患疼痛的麻醉方式也是其中重要的一項。目前台灣大部分醫院，包括台大醫院已經有病患術後自控式止痛服務的提供，但因為PCA小組尚在起步階段，再加上病患老舊觀念所造成的阻礙，使得術後止痛服務的使用率不如預期；以目前台大醫院每位病患須自費7,300元，每個月平均約有350病患使用，總產質約2,555,000，若能因服務品牌質的提升，使每個月病患使用數量達500名（達每月開刀人數約15%），則每個月總產質可提高至3,650,000元。因此，如何有效推廣該項服務，提升服務的品質與數量，讓病患樂於接受術後麻醉服務，同時也院方自費項目的產值也十分可觀，是值得探討與研究的議題。
本研究計劃主要是針對本院PCA小組在投入人力與相關設備等資源後，下一步如何全面提昇急性疼痛服務的質與量，做完整地分析、探討；並針對問題提出解決方案。首先是經由平衡計分卡的建立來確立問題及假設，之後將嘗試在所有急性疼痛服務流系統程中建構動態調整模式，企圖藉由因果回饋圖和模擬結果找出不同科別、病房找出其主要驅動要素因子 (driver)，針對該驅動要素因子 (driver)的調整改善，最後經由動態平衡計分卡與KPI值（Key Performance Index）的成效評量，找出適合不同科別、病房的策略指導方針，希望完成建構一套持續成長、改進的急性疼痛服務模式。有機會並希望將此系統模式應用到其他醫院，讓台大醫院急性疼痛服務小組成為台灣發展院內急性疼痛服務的領先指標與模範。

關鍵字

急性疼痛處理小組 ； 平衡計分卡 ； 因果關係動態分析圖 ； KPI值

並列摘要

With the rapid progression of new technology, medical services have continuous changed and developed day by day. Different kinds of analgesic methods or packages for relieving postoperative pain are one of the items. At present, most of big hospitals, including NTUH (National Taiwan University Hospital) have provided patient controlled analgesia for postoperative pain management. Owing to the initial development stage of APS (Acute Pain Service) team in our hospital and the obstacle from traditional old concept, the applying percentage of APS for the clinical practice was beyond the expectation. At present, patients have to pay NT 7,300 for receiving APS and about 350 patients will apply APS per month. The overall gross income (patients have to pay by themselves and the health insurance does not cover) will be around NT 2,555,000 every month. If the case number could increase by improving the service quality and then around 500 patients (15% of total patients receiving operation) will apply APS per month, the overall gross income will increase to around NT 3,650,000 every month. Thus, how to popularize this service by upgrade the service quality and quantity, and then increase the willing of patient to adopt this service with increasing the self-payment income for hospital simultaneously should be an important issue for further study and investigation.
This study was conducted to completely analyze, evaluate and propose the solution how to upgrade and improve the quality and quantity of APS in our hospital, since we have invested a lot of capital and manpower in setting up APS team. At first, we try to make sure and find out the target issues, problems and assumptions via BSC (Balanced Scorecard) analysis. Then, we will construct a dynamic modifying model from the APS systemic processing and try to dig out the key driver factor in the different wards and surgical departments through the cause & effect feedback diagram and the simulation results. At last, we will focus to make the modification and improvement for those key driver factors and by using the dynamic BSC and KPI value (Key Performance Index) to make the final evaluation and judgment of achievements. The main purpose or goal is tried to construct an evaluation and continuous improvement system model to upgrade the quality and quantity of acute pain service for different wards and surgical departments in our hospital. In the near future, we might popularize this APS system model to the other hospitals to upgrade the NTUH APS team as the leading index and role model in developing APS in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

APS (Acute Pain Service) team ； BSC (Balanced Scorecard) ； cause & effect feedback diagram ； KPI value (Key Performance Index)

參考文獻

17. 王敏容等（2005）「市場競爭程度對醫院開發自費醫療服務之影響」，北市醫學雜誌，第2卷，第10期，頁895~906。

18. 劉燦宏、任文媛、趙嘉成、崔岡、邱文達（2004）「以顧客關係管理觀點探討自費醫療服務」。醫護管理期刊，第5卷，第3期，頁340-321。

2. Kitazawa, S., and Sarkis, J. “The Relationship Between ISO 14001and Continuous Source Reduction Programs,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, no. 2, 2000, 225–248.

3. Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992), “The Balance Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action”, Harvard Business School Press.

5. Lipe, M.G. & Salterio, S.E. (2000), “The Balance Scorecard: judgemental effects of common and unique performance measure”. The Accounting Review, Vol.75 (3), Page 283-298.