DEVELOPING
A LIFE CYCLE FRAMEWORK WORLD-CLASS FOR CREATING FACILITIES MHS CASE STUDY
Deborah A. Franqui, MS Student
July 14, 2011
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Clemson University
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dina Battisto, Chair, School of Architecture David Allison, School of Architecture Betty Baldwin, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
Deborah A. Franqui, MS Student
July 14, 2011
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Clemson University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction II. Literature Review III. Research Design and Methods IV. Results / Findings V. Conclusion
Deborah A. Franqui, MS Student
July 14, 2011
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Clemson University
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. The Problem B. Thesis
Introduction
Table of Contents
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
As care shifts from inpatient to outpatient services, ambulatory care is poised for growth in the United States. Primary care facilities are the fastest growing segment of healthcare spending and are poised for continued growth in the United States.
While this growth is unmistakable, the availability of standardized spaceplanning tools that link the planning, designing and evaluation of primary care clinics is limited.
The impact of the physical environment on patient, family and staff satisfaction and outcomes focused on primary care. There is a need for an integrated process framework that spans from predesign to post-occupancy which includes standardized tools to guide, assess and evaluate the architectural process throughout the Building Life Cycle. This is vital to assist architects, facility managers and healthcare organizations in the planning of primary care facilities.
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Problem Overview
OVERALL GROWTH OF AMBULATORY CARE
From 1997 to 2007, the number of ambulatory care visits increased overall by 25 % (figure 1), faster than the growth of the U.S. population, which rose by 11 % (Schappert, & Rechtsteiner, 2011). The growth of ambulatory care visits is influenced by the healthcare reform,
clinical practice changes, technological advancements and higher reimbursement rates from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for outpatient services. The aging population and the rise of chronic conditions among this population will also direct more traffic to ambulatory care settings while chronic diseases will be managed with a more longitudinal approach on an outpatient basis.
Figure 1: Trends in Ambulatory Care Visits: U.S. 1997 – 2007 (Schappert & Rechtsteiner, 2011)
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Overall Growth of Ambulatory Care
GROWTH OF AMBULATORY CARE MHS PERSPECTIVE
The Military Health System (MHS), one of the largest healthcare systems in the world, has also shown a significant growth in ambulatory care. The MHS is a $49 B organization that provides care to 9.6 M beneficiaries across a range of care venues. The MHS outpatient visits have grown from 967,500 visits per week in 2002 to 1.8 M in 2010, an approximate 86 % increase.
Figure 2: MHS Bedded, Medical and Dental Facilities 2004 – 2011 MHS 2011 Stakeholder’s Report
MHS Outpatient Visits per Week Eligible Beneficiaries Prime Enrollees Medical Centers Total Expenditure
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
967,500
1.2M
1.46M
1.7M
1.8M
642,400 Encounters
1.8 M
8.4 M
8.65 M
8.9 M
9.1 M
9.2 M
9.1 M
200,000 Daily Visits 9.2 M
4.006 M 4.04 M
5.1 M
5.2 M
5.0 M
5.0 M
5.02 M
9.6 M
460
461
461
411
411
412
413
364
24 B
21.8 B
27.36 B
37.4 B
37.1 B
39.32 B
42.178 B
49 B
Figure 3: Direct Care and Purchased Cara Weighted Visits 2005 – 2011 MHS 2010 Stakeholder’s Report
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Growth of Ambulatory Care MHS Perspective
OVERALL FORCES IMPACTING GROWTH OF PRIMARY CARE
Consistently from 1995 to 2008 the largest percentage of ambulatory care (AC) visits has been made to primary care delivery sites (figures 4,5). Healthcare reform in USA, will focus on primary and preventive care to improve management of chronic conditions in a coordinated outpatient oriented care delivery model (Johnson, 2010). Increase in chronic illnesses in USA, in 2005 133 million Americans had at
least one chronic condition (45 % of US population); and this number is expected to grow to 157 million in 2020; in 2005 63 million had multiple Figure 4: Age Adjusted Ambulatory Care Visit Rates by Setting Type: U.S., 1997, 2002 and 2007
chronic conditions which is expected to reach 81 million in 2020 (Bodenheimer, Chen, & Bennett, 2009). Currently most care for chronic illnesses takes place in primary care
Growth to Primary Care Visits
AC Visits
PC Visits
Total PC Visits
2005
1.2 B
49.0 %
588 M
2006
1.1 B
46.8 %
468 M
2007
1.2 B
48.1 %
577 M
2008
1.1 B
62.0 %
664 M
practices while primary care offers high quality care at lower costs for patients with chronic conditions (Bodenheimer, Chen, & Bennett, 2009).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau the proportion of the population 65 and older will increase from 13 % to 20 %, an increase of about 30 million.
Figure 5: Percentage of Primary Care Visit Based on Total Ambulatory Care Visits: U.S. 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Overall Forces Impacting Growth of Primary Care
FORCES IMPACTING GROWTH OF PRIMARY CARE
MHS PERSPECTIVE
The MHS has focused on the redesign of care delivery around primary care to yield an excellent return on investment The MHS Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is emerging as a “best
practice” redesign model. The MHS Value of Primary Care is focused on: Improving efficiency; areas with higher primary care supply have lower
costs Better outcomes; better health outcomes in areas with higher primary care supply Improving quality of care, patient experiences, care coordination and
access Reducing utilization of emergency department and inpatient services= savings in total costs
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Forces Impacting Growth of Primary Care MHS Perspective
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
CARE DELIVERY MODELS
The growth of primary care facilities that integrate multidisciplinary teams will become essential in “improving care and at times lowering costs for
patients with chronic diseases” (Bodenheimer, Chen, & Bennett, 2009). Primary care facilities will provide a hub for integrated services leading to excellent health outcomes.
The Patient-Centered Medical Home as a central component of healthcare reform has markedly increased during the past few years, as recognition of the potential for improvements in healthcare quality and clinical outcomes.
The Patient-Centered Medical Home is a central component of the Military Health System Primary Care Delivery
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Care Delivery Models
Clinical Settings
P
M
S
AS D & T UC
Ambulatory Care Delivery Models
Physician Office Group Practice Primary Care Clinic
Community Health Center P+M+D&T
Specialty Clinic Multi-Specialty Clinic
Multi-Specialty Clinic P + M + S + AS + D & T + UC
Physician Offices
Multi-Specialty
Specialty Clinic M + S + ASC + D & T
Clinic Community Health
Inpatient
Center AS Center AS Center
Group Practice
H
D & T Center E.D.
D & T Center
D&T Physician Offices
UC Center Hospital
Urgent Care
Outpatient
AS Center
Outpatient
P: Primary Care
Multi-Specialty Clinic P+M+S+D&T
Primary Care Clinic P+M+D&T
Figure 7: Most Common Ambulatory Clinical Settings
Services
Community Health Center P+M+D&T
Multi-Specialty Clinic P + M + S + AS + D & T + UC
Patient-Centered Medical Home
M: Medical Specialty Care S: Surgical Specialty Care AS: Ambulatory Surgery D & T: Diagnostic and Treatment Modalities
Figure 6: Community-Based Health Continuum
UC: Urgent Care
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Care Delivery Models
GAPS IN THE LITERATURE AND IN PRACTICE
Existing Space Planning Tools:  Architects, facility managers and healthcare organizations look for guidance in recognized sources such as FGI Healthcare Design and Construction Guidelines and the Whole Building Design Guide.  Sources available for room area sizing are Veterans Affairs (VA) and
Department of Defense (DOD) Space Planning Criteria and Templates, which provide prescriptive room area sizes; Space Med Guide is available to provide room area allocations and overall space calculation methods based on patient volumes and utilization targets.
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Gaps in the Literature and In Practice
GAPS IN THE LITERATURE AND IN PRACTICE
Limitations of Existing Tools: What we have: Current planning tools are useful for determining minimum square footage of room-type areas and technical requirements; however they lack information that is critical for the effective design of primary care facilities. What we need: Critical planning information should include space
allocations and room area standards, and facility recommendations that support: Functionality and maximum space utilization; Volume projections and utilization targets;
Flexible and adaptable facility solutions that can accommodate volume fluctuations; The on-going integration of new technology; Shifts in staffing and workflow patterns that lead to operational
efficiency and effectiveness.
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Gaps in the Literature and In Practice
REFOCUSING CARE DELIVERY ON THE PATIENT
Patient and family-centered care initiatives are refocusing care delivery on the patient. Provide the best care to patients throughout their healthcare experience,
while including their family in the care process; clinics are beginning to align care delivery with patient needs and expectations. According to the National Institute of Building Sciences, every effort should be made to make the outpatient visit as unthreatening and comfortable as possible, as well as to “embrace the patient, family and caregivers in a psychosocially supportive therapeutic environment” (Barker, Pocock, & Huber, 2010).
Patient and Family Centered Care Organization in collaboration with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has recognized four core dimensions, Dignity and Respect, Information Sharing, Participation, and Collaboration. Planetree Organization Patient and Family Centered Care Organization, providers partner with patients and their family members to identify and satisfy the full range of patient needs and preferences. I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Refocusing Care Delivery on the Patient
LINKING DESIGN TO OUTCOMES
While there is evident growth in primary care services, few research studies specifically address the impact of the design of primary care clinics’
environments on outcomes (Center for Health Design, “Design Process”). This trend has influenced planning and design decisions about the built environment based on credible research to achieve the best possible outcomes (Center for Health Design, “Design Process”), however evidencebased design has mostly focused on inpatient care. Over the past fifteen years, evidence-based design (EBD) has emerged as a scientific response to the questions about how the built environment
impacts patient, staff and resource outcomes (Malone, Mann-Dooks, & Strauss, 2007).
I. Introduction
A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Linking Design to Outcomes
ARCHITECTURAL PROCESS MODELS AIA PHASES OF DESIGN ORIGINATE FOCUS DESIGN BUILD OCCUPY Figure 9: AIA Five Phases of Design Retrieved from: http://howdesignworks.aia.org/fivephases.asp
Five Architectural Process Models that recognize the facility life’s span from
pre-design to post-occupancy have been studied: 1. American Institute of Architects (AIA) Phases of Design (figure 9) 2. Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) Process Model (figure 10) 3. Center for Health Design (CHD) Evidence-Based Design Process (figure 11) 4. Spiral Model (Zeisel, 2006) (figure 12) 5. Military Health System (MHS) Life Cycle Model (figure 13)
The AIA Phases of Design spans from pre-design to occupancy, however it is Figure 10: Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) Process Model (Preiser and Schramm, 2002) Retrieved from : http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=844339&show=html
not represented as a cyclical model. Preiser and Schramm’s BPE Process Model and the Center for Health Design Evidence-Based Design Process Model are cyclical models spanning from pre-design to post-occupancy feeding forward to the next building cycle. These models present and overall framework yet lack developed standardized guidance, assessment and evaluation tools that inform each
Figure 11: Center for Health Design Evidence-Based Design Process (Retrieved from: http://www.healthdesign.org/clinic-design/design-process
I. Introduction
phase of the project. A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Architectural Process Models
ARCHITECTURAL PROCESS MODELS
Spiral Model, John Zeisel sets out basic concepts regarding the relationship of research and design, researcher learns by making hypothetical predictions, testing ideas, evaluating outcomes and modifying hypotheses. The MHS has adopted an evidence-based design framework that spans from pre-design to occupancy. Four phases within the Life Cycle Framework have been identified including: Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning (translating phase)
Figure 12: Spiral Model by Zeisel (1981) Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522110001405
Requirements Planning (guiding phase) Design and Construction (reviewing phase) Facility Activation and Operations (measuring phase)
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Phase III Facility Activation Design & & Operations Construction
MEASURING REVIEWING
Phases are supported by a library of tools that are informed by best practices, scientific research and national standards The MHS Life Cycle Framework combined offers one of the most complete framework and set of tools to date, yet it is fragmented There is no comprehensive documentation of this model, this model is
Figure 13: MHS Life Cycle Framework
I. Introduction
currently evolving A. The Problem
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Architectural Process Models
THESIS
Gain an in-depth understanding of the Military Health System Facility Life Cycle Management current process and future vision, with a
particular focus on
Primary Care Facilities two parallel activities: MHS Portfolio Planning and Management Division (PPMD) Facility Life Cycle Model, policy, criteria and process tools MHS World-Class Initiative Facility Life Cycle Model, guidance, reviewing and measuring tools
I. Introduction
B. Thesis
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Ambulatory Care B. Primary Care C. Patient Centered Approach D. Post-Occupancy Evaluation
II. Literature Review
Table of Contents
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
AMBULATORY CARE
Ambulatory care services are important because of their central role as the initial and continuing point of contact with the health care system; they are the major source of intake for patients who need healthcare (Ross, Williams, & Pavlock, 1998). According to National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from May 1973 to April 1974, office-based physician visits amounted to 590.8 million visits, and in 1990 these visits had increased to 704.6 million (Schappert, 1992). Conversely from 1970 to 1990, the number of hospitals, the number of beds, and the hospital occupancy rates began to decrease, while the number of outpatient visits rose (Marberry, 1995).
From 1997 to 2007, the annual number of ambulatory care visits increased by 25%, reaching 1.2 billion visits in 2007 (Schappert & Rechtsteiner, 2011).
II. Literature Review
A. Ambulatory Care
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PRIMARY CARE
Primary care dates back to the 1920s when the Dawson Report was released in the United Kingdom and “primary health centers” were mentioned, intended to become the center of regionalized care. In response to the growth of specialties, the new concept of primary care as
a field became a major focus of health care in the United States, and family medicine was established as a specialty in 1969 (Mann, Schuetz, & RubinJohnson, 2010). Nearly half a century after its inception, primary care stands at the top of the United States health care system priorities and the central focus of the health care reform (Mann, Schuetz, & Rubin-Johnson, 2010). Conversely, the proportion of all physicians practicing primary care has
decreased. As shared by many experts, “while the crisis in primary care presents a tremendous set of challenges, is also offers a remarkable opportunity for change through the increased use of effective innovations” (Mann, Schuetz, & Rubin-Johnston, 2010). II. Literature Review
B. Primary Care
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PATIENT CENTERED APPROACH
Patient-centered care became a central focus in health care delivery since the Institute of Medicine’s report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, which advances that healthcare must be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable, in order to
improve quality and safety (IOM, 2001). The IOM developed ten rules to transform care delivery centering on the following areas: care should be based on continuous healing relationships; care should be customized on patient needs and values; the patient should be placed as the source of control; shared knowledge and free flow of information is necessary; and a need for transparency in the care delivery process (IOM, 2001).
Research by the Picker Institute has delineated eight dimensions of patientcentered care to “improving Healthcare through the Patient’s Eyes”. The MHS is transforming its primary care system into a Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model of care in order to improve health care quality, access, care coordination, satisfaction and safety. II. Literature Review
C. Patient Centered Approach
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
“Post-occupancy evaluation is the process of systematically comparing actual building performance, i.e., performance measures, with explicitly stated performance criteria” (Preiser, 1995) POE dates back to the 1960s when severe problems, some of which were attributable to the built environment, were observed in institutions, such as mental hospitals and prisons (Preiser, Rabinowitz, & White, 1988). Types of POE: Indicative POE - This level simply indicates the major successes and failures of a building’s performance. Investigative POE - When indicative POE have identified major issues that warrant more detailed study, an investigative POE is performed. Diagnostic POE - This advanced POE is a comprehensive and in-depth investigation conducted at a high level of effort. The MHS desires to be a national leader in patient care, health education, training, research and technology.
(MHS Vision Statement, Department of Defense – Military
Health System; http://www.health.mil/StrategicPlan/Vision.aspx). process to assist the MHS in achieving this vision.
II. Literature Review
D. Post-Occupancy Evaluation
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
The POE is a viable
III. Research Design and Methods
A. Areas of Focus and Objectives B. Research Questions C. Theoretical Framework D. Research Design E. Data Analysis
III. Research Design and methods
Table of Contents
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
RESEARCH AREAS OF FOCUS
Gain an in-depth understanding of the Military Health System Facility Life Cycle Management Process current process and future vision, with a particular focus on Primary Care Facilities, two parallel activities: MHS Portfolio Planning and Management Division (PPMD) Life Cycle Model PPMD Policy PPMD Criteria - under revision by Health Facilities Steering Committee (HFSC) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Appendix A and B Space Planning Criteria MIL-STD 1691 Templates PPMD Tools - under revision by HFSC Space and Equipment Planning System (SEPS) Capital Improvement Decision Modeling (CIDM) & DD 1391
MHS World Class Initiative Life Cycle Model World-Class Checklist / Design Strategies – currently used as guidance, will eventually become a Policy World-Class Reviewing Tools – have not been developed MHS Evaluation Tools / Post-Occupancy Evaluation – in process
III. Research Design and methods
A. Areas of Focus and Objectives
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Areas of Focus
OBJECTIVES
1. Develop an understanding of the MHS Life Cycle Framework so it can be compared to other leading healthcare organizations for the future development of a Universal Architectural Process Model. 2. Apply this Model specifically to Primary Care Facilities. 3. Identify if any of these standardized planning, pre-design and postoccupancy evaluation tools could be used across other organizations to inform architects, facility managers and healthcare organizations planning future Primary Care Clinics.
III. Research Design and methods
A. Areas of Focus and Objectives
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Objectives
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
How does the PPMD Facility Life Cycle Activities relate to MHS
World-Class activities? Similarities and Differences What key guidance, reviewing and measuring tools does the MHS currently use? What key guidance, reviewing and measuring tools are planned for the future? What are the potential areas of overlap between the PPMD and World-Class
Initiative
in
terms
measuring tools?
III. Research Design and methods
B. Research Questions
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
of
guidance,
reviewing
and
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework used for this research study is complexity theory. A complex system constantly changes due to different types of transitions. First the internal structure of a system can change to better interact with the external changes. Second the outside forces drive a system to an unorganized state before changing into one of more organization (Schieve and Allen, 1982). Complex systems as constantly changing its internal structure and external environment through self-organization (Manson, 2001).
III. Research Design and Methods
C. Theoretical Framework
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
RESEARCH DESIGN
Qualitative approach to research, following case study design for descriptive understanding of the MHS FLCM process, using:
“Case study research excels at bringing an indepth understanding of a complex issue to extend the researcher experience and add
Phase I
Archival Data Collection and Validation
Phase II
Focus Group Discussion Session
Phase III
Semi-Structured Expert Interviews
strength to what is already known”.
Qualitative case study: Emphasis on the exploration of a phenomenon within its context using a variety of data sources Sequential approach ensured that the issue was explored through a
variety of lenses, allowing multiple facets of the phenomenon to be revealed and understood (Baxter, & Jack, 2008). This research study follows researcher Robert K. Yin definition of case study, “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon, in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin, 1984, p. 23). The type of case study is exploratory, as we explored those situations in which the intervention being evaluated had no clear, single set of outcomes
(Yin, 2003). III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
SINGLE CASE STUDY
A single case study has been considered, the MHS FLCM process, which includes the MHS PPMD Facility Life Cycle Model, policy, criteria and tools, and
the MHS World–Class Initiative Life Cycle Model, guidance, reviewing and measuring tools. Our rationale for selecting a single case: MHS is one of the largest healthcare systems in the world joining efforts with healthcare leaders to develop leading edge innovations to plan, design and execute World-Class Facilities with a recent focus on Primary Care. MHS FLCM process is a comprehensive system that deals with the full Life
Cycle of a building that integrates regulatory, guidance, assessment and evaluation tools informed by scientific research, best practices and regulations focused on World-Class Primary Care Clinics. In addition a single case was selected due to the scale and complexity
of the MHS FLCM process This study is bounded by the MHS current (FY 2011) and future (FY 2012) vision of the FLCM process. III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
MHS ORGANIZATION
Portfolio Planning and Management Division (PPMD): Serves as the focal point for all issues pertaining to the acquisition, sustainment, renewal, and
modernization of the full range of facilities within the Tricare Military Health System (MHS).
(Retrieved from: http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/ppmd/index.cfm).
World-Class Initiative: Serves as the focal point for the development of the World-Class policy, guidance, reviewing and measuring tools to plan, design and execute World-Class medical facilities. Health Facilities Steering Committee (HFSC): Serves as the working body for MHS facility-related policy development, program analysis and advocacy, issue resolution, and TMA/Service coordination and collaboration.
(Retrieved from:
.
http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/_docs/hfsc_charter.pdf)
Noblis: A science, technology, and strategy organization that provides expert technical and advisory services to the Department of Defense (DoD) (Retrieved from: http://www.noblis.org/AboutNoblis/Contracting/Pages/default.aspx). Tricare Management Agency (TMA): Has authority, direction, and control
over all DoD medical and dental personnel, facilities, programs, funding, and other
resources
within
the
http://www.tricare.mil/charters/tmacharter.html).
III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Department
of
Defense
(Retrieved
from:
RESEARCH METHODS DATA COLLECTION
PHASE I Archival Data Introduction The PPMD and the World-Class Facility Life Cycle models are two separate models and not currently considered as an integrated model of the FLCM process. The PPMD criteria, policy and tools selected are the documents that have been identified as regulatory and currently implemented by the MHS FLCM
process; they are currently under revision by the Health Facilities Steering Committee. The World-Class Checklist is currently used as a guidance tool influencing the criteria revision and the design and construction process; the World-Class tools will eventually become a Policy.
III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
RESEARCH METHODS DATA COLLECTION
PHASE I Archival Data Reviewed MHS PPMD: Facility Life Cycle Model Policy MHS FLCM process Department of Defense Instructions (DoDI) Criteria Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) currently under revision by HFSC Space Planning Criteria currently under revision by HFSC MIL-STD-1691 Medical (Equipment Data Base) revised quarterly MHS Templates currently under revision by HFSC Tools Space and Equipment Planning System (SEPS) Plan for Design Output currently under revision Capital Improvement Decision Modeling (CIDM) currently under revision by HFSC DD 1391 Project Costing Guidance
MHS World-Class:
Facility Life Cycle Model MHS World-Class Tools World-Class Checklist - completed Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Tools Summary - in process III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
RESEARCH METHODS DATA COLLECTION
PHASE II Focus Group Discussion Session Purpose of the focus group discussion session: Identify future vision of the MHS FLCM process
Establish joint collaboration among the Department of Defense and the Veterans Affair to eliminate duplicity of efforts, bring financial strength, stronger capacity for resources and a larger data base informed by research to attain a common goal, World-Class Healthcare The participants of the focus group discussion session included key experts from the MHS Tricare Management Agency (TMA), PMD and the Health Facilities Steering Committee (HFSC), key stakeholders of the Veteran Affairs and key experts from Noblis and NXT/Clemson. The focus group discussion was approximately one hour in length.
III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
RESEARCH METHODS DATA COLLECTION
PHASE III Semi-Structured Expert Interviews Experts were selected based on key characteristics including their responsibility for the MHS FLCM current process and future development, their role in the implementation and control of the policy, criteria and tools, their privileged access to information, as well as their involvement in the resulting knowledge.
Six experts were interviewed from TMA (PPMD and HFSC), and two experts from NXT/Clemson. Interviews ranged from 25 minutes to 1 hour
Interviews were recorded and transcribed Interview Protocol: Introduction: Purpose of the Interview and 5 Research Objectives Questions: Total of 6 topical areas with questions Conclusion: Two open ended questions Critique of a proposed diagram of an integrated Facility Life Cycle Model III. Research Design and Methods
D. Research Design
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
DATA ANALYSIS
Data Analysis included analysis of case context, case description, and within case theme analysis. Interview Coding Strategy: Regulatory World-Class Tools Purpose Content Relation to Other Tools Users Implementation Phase
Future development
III. Research Design and Methods
E. Data Analysis
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
IV.
Results / Findings
A. Introduction B. Review of Components C. Overall Facility Life Cycle Management Process
IV. Results / Findings
Table of Contents
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
MHS FACILITY LIFE CYCLE FRAMEWORK
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
LIBRARY OF TOOLS POLICY
DODI Sustainability and Energy World-Class Healthcare
CRITERIA TOOLS UFC Space Planning Criteria MIL-STD-1691 Templates
PROCESS TOOLS
SEPS DD 1391 CIDM
GUIDING TOOLS
World-Class Checklist Design Guidelines Case Studies
PPMD
REVIEWING TOOLS
UFC Sustainability & Energy World-Class
MEASURING TOOLS POE Toolkit
World-Class Figure 12: MHS Life Cycle Framework
IV. Results / Findings
A. Introduction
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
RESULTS / FINDINGS
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM Process Tools SEPS DD 1391 CIDM
POLICY
PPMD WC
IV. Results / Findings
DODI Sustainability & Energy
World-Class Healthcare future policy
Criteria
UFC Space Planning MIL-STD-1691 Templates
S1 – S6 GUIDING TOOLS
World-Class Checklist Design Guidelines
A. Introduction
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEWING TOOLS UFC Sustainability & Energy World-Class Checklists
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
MEASURING TOOLS POE Toolkit
RESULTS / FINDINGS
MHS Facilities Life Cycle Management Process DoDI
PPMD POLICY
PROCESS TOOLS
Purpose: Department of Defense Instructions (DoDI) defines roles and responsibilities across the services Army, Navy and Air Force, defines the scope
POLICY
PPMD
CRITERIA
DODI
of the Facility Life Cycle
S1 – S6
WC FUTURE POLICY
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
Content: Phase I
Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Management
Phase II
Requirements Planning
Phase III
Design and Construction Execution
Phase IV
Facility Activation and Operations
Users: Services, Army, Navy, and Air Force; Health Affairs; the Agents, Army Corps of Engineers and Navy facilities (NAVFAC)
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Policy
RESULTS / FINDINGS
WORLD-CLASS POLICY
World Class Healthcare
(currently a guidance tool and will eventually
become policy)
PROCESS TOOLS
Purpose: Guide the planning, and design process to deliver World-Class CRITERIA
POLICY
PPMD WC
facilities.
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
Content:
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
Guiding Principles: The guiding values, abiding Rules and beliefs that need to be followed in order to plan, design and execute World-Class Facilities.
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Core Dimensions: Key dimensions that encompass the design strategies and address the guiding principles Objectives: Clearly defined and measurable outcomes aimed towards
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
achieving a particular goal. Design Strategies: Design intervention and suggested plan of action that works towards achieving a particular goal and objective. Design strategies are categorized into World-Class Mandatory, Best Practice Mandatory,
World-Class Consider and Best Practice Consider. Supporting Literature: Best Practice Case Studies, Scientific Research and
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
Regulations. B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
World-Class Policy
RESULTS / FINDINGS
WORLD-CLASS POLICY
WC
HFSC is currently integrating the World-Class Checklist to: Space Planning Criteria
CRITERIA
PPMD
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
(continued)
Relation to Other Tools:
PROCESS TOOLS
POLICY
World Class Healthcare
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS
Unified Facilities Criteria MEASURE TOOLS
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Templates Measuring Tools (POE) Future Developments: On-going review of the World-Class Checklist based on POE results
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
World-Class Policy
GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
HBD DOMAINS:
01: Provide a Patient and Family-Centered Care 02: Achieve World-Class Quality and Safety 03: Create a Positive Work Environment 04: Improve Operational Effectiveness 05: Be Sustainable with a High Level of Community Responsibility 06: Provide High Value and Be Good Stewards of Taxpayer Money 07: Be Evidence and Performance Based 08: Design for Maximum Flexibility, Standardization and Growth 09: Decision making Based on Best Practices and Innovation
1
Basic Infrastructure
Phase II Requirements Planning
2
Leadership and Culture
3
Process of Care
4
Performance
GUIDING
5
Knowledge Management
6
Community Responsibility
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
WORLD-CLASS LIBRARY OF TOOLS
and
Social
MHS FACILITY DASHBOARD
TRANSLATING TOOLS
GUIDING TOOLS
REVIEWING TOOLS
MEASURING TOOLS
Synthesis and Vetting
WC Checklist Design Guidelines Case Studies
Guidelines Design review
POE (Post-Occupancy Evaluation)
WEB-BASED INTERFACE TOOL Inventory Projects Requirements
KNOWLEDGE AND COLLABORATION BEST PRACTICES
Case Study Data Base MHS Facilities and Other
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH MHS POE Database Evidence-based Design Research National Data Sets
REGULATIONS Codes Policies Guidelines Figure 12: MHS Life Cycle Model
IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
World-Class Facility Life Cycle
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD REGULATORY CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)
(last revised November 2009)
Purpose: Provides mandatory design and construction criteria for facilities in
the DoD Medical Military Construction Program. While these criteria were not CRITERIA UFC
POLICY
PPMD WC
developed primarily for use to review military construction program and
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
budget submissions, it is recognized the UFC may be used for this purpose. Content: Appendix A: Architectural and Engineering Design Requirements
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
(informs the Design and Construction Phase) Appendix B: Design Submittals and Documentation for Design/Bid/Build
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
Acquisition Process (currently used as review instrument) S-1 Block Plan S-2 Schematic Design S-3 Concepts Design (30 % design submittal)
S-4 Technical (35 % design submittal) S-5 Final (65 % design submittal)
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
S-6 Final (100 % design submittal) B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Regulatory Criteria
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD REGULATORY CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
POLICY
PPMD WC
Relation to Other Tools: World-Class Checklist (the World-Class checklist informs the UFC) Space Planning Criteria
CRITERIA UFC
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) (continued)
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
Templates Informs SEPS
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
Users: Used by the agents (Corps of Engineers and NAVFAC), the architects and contractors
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Future Development: Last updated November 2009, update in process by HFSC.
IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Regulatory Criteria
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD REGULATORY CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
PPMD WC
Purpose: Provides guidance for Space Planning for Primary Care / Family may include: family practice, general outpatient, immunization, internal
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
(last revised 2006)
Practice / Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH). Primary care Clinics
CRITERIA Space Planning Criteria
POLICY
Space Planning Criteria
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
medicine, pediatric and physical examination clinics.
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
Content: Definitions (staffing, room areas, net to gross, workload)
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Policies (required space program areas) Program Data Required (questions to generate space requirements) Space Criteria (room name, room code, NSF, description- calculation
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
methodologies and specific requirements per room type area) Relation to Other Tools: World-Class Checklist (the World-Class checklist informs the Space
Planning Criteria) UFC Templates
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
Informs SEPS B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Regulatory Criteria
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD REGULATORY CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
POLICY
PPMD WC
Users: Services, Army, Navy and Air Force and the Architects
CRITERIA Space Planning Criteria
Future Development: A process for continuous update has been developed
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
Space Planning Criteria (continued)
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Regulatory Criteria
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD REGULATORY CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
PPMD WC
MIL-STD-1691 Medical (Equipment Data Base)
CRITERIA 1691
POLICY
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
Purpose: Provides a detailed list of equipment (medical equipment and furniture) Content:
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
(revised quarterly)
Coded
equipment
list,
equipment
specifications
recommended manufacturers Relation to other tools:
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
Templates Informs SEPS
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
Users: Services, Army, Navy and Air Force, A + E designers
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Regulatory Criteria
and
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD GUIDANCE CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
PPMD WC
Purpose: Their main purpose is to provide a recommended layout,
Content: They include a space layout, the equipment (furniture and medical
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
(last revised 2006)
equipment and infrastructure to support the function of key room areas.
CRITERIA Templates
POLICY
Templates (Formerly known as Guide Plates)
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS MEASURE TOOLS
equipment) required to support the specific room function, and the
infrastructure (electrical and medical gases) that supports the specified equipment. Each key Room area has a room code that is referred in the Space Planning Criteria and in the Unified Facilities Criteria.
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Relation to Other Tools: Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
Space Planning Criteria MIL-STD-1691 Medical equipment SEPS, the templates can be accessed through SEPS Users: Services, Army, Navy and Air Force; the A + E designers
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Guidance Criteria
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD GUIDANCE CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
POLICY
PPMD WC
Future Developments: Clinic Templates (Planning Concepts) Department Templates (Planning Concepts)
CRITERIA Templates
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
Templates (Former Guide Plates) (continued)
GUIDING TOOLS
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
REVIEW TOOLS
Process for continuous update The templates will integrate the World-Class Checklist
MEASURE TOOLS
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Guidance Criteria
RESULTS / FINDINGS PPMD TEMPLATES
PROPOSED EXAMPLE FOR TEMPLATE REFINEMENT
AREA:
OUTPATIENT
FAMILY ZONE
ROOM: EXAM ROOM CODE:
EXRG1
SIZE:
120 SQUARE FEET 12’- 0” X 10’- 0”
CEILING HEIGHT:
153
2021
2021
20 SQ.FT / 17 %
STAFF ZONE
33
40 SQ.FT / 33%
PATIENT ZONE
8’ – 0”
60 SQ.FT / 50%
55
169
IV. Results / Findings
ID
Design Strategy
Metric
2001
Family Zone
Total Square Feet Percent of Total Space
55
Patient Comfort and Control
Total Square Feet Percent of Total Space
55
Patient Comfort and Control
# and Type of Controls
33
Staff Zone Sized to Support Procedures
Total Square Feet Percent of Total
153
Visual Access to Nature
Window Size Height from Finished Floor
169
Assistive Devices
# of Assistive Devices
2021
Opportunities for Patient and Family Education
Size of Educational Wall Display
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Benchmark
PPMD Templates
RESULTS / FINDINGS
PPMD CRITERIA AND PROCESS TOOLS RELATIONSHIPS REQUIREMENTS PLANNING
CRITERIA
CRITERIA
PROCESS TOOLS
PFD
UFC
Space Planning
SEPS
Program For Design
DESIGN
DESIGN
World-Class CRITERIA Templates 1691
IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Criteria and Process Tools
FINDINGS / RESULTS
PPMD PROCESS TOOLS DEFINED Space and Equipment Planning System (SEPS) is an automated tool that takes the space planning criteria, UFC Appendix A and the MIL-STD-1691 to calculate programmatic requirements. Questions relate to the Mission, Staffing and Workload. The output is a Program for Design (PFD) which integrates the Space
Planning Criteria, UFC, and Equipment list. The Templates can be accessed through SEPS. DD 1391 Form is the cost estimating guidance for Medical projects. The purpose of this guidance is to have reliable cost estimates for the Budget Estimate Submission (BES). It uses an area cost factor, a sizing factor and an escalation factor. PACES is a Parametric Cost Estimating System is an alternative cost methodology that can be used for estimating Medical projects. The VA has invested and in in the process of integrating SEPS with PACES. Future costing models include Life Cycle Costing solutions. Capital Investment Decision Modeling (CIDM) was developed to prioritize facility capital investment proposals to support strategic planning decision making. Is used to assist the MHS to validate facility requirements and alignment with strategic goals. Includes a Program for Design and an Economic Analysis. The result is a list of recommended facility projects ranked in order of merit based upon a consistently applied set of strategic evaluation criteria. IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
PPMD Process Tools
DESIGN AUTHORIZATION PROCESS REQUIREMENTS PLANNING
PROCESS TOOLS SEPS space & equipment planning system
PFD
PROCESS TOOLS
Program For Design
PROCESS TOOLS
DD 1391 PACES
CIDM
IV. Results / Findings
project costing
capital investment decision modeling
B. Review of Components
DA
TMA
Design Authorization
Approves PFD DD 1391
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
DESIGN
DESIGN
Design Authorization Process
RESULTS / FINDINGS
WORLD-CLASS REVIEWING TOOLS
World-Class Design Review Checklist Purpose: Design Review Instrument that will assess the implementation of the
PROCESS TOOLS
Design Strategies through the Design Process POLICY
CRITERIA
PPMD WC
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
GUIDING TOOLS
REVIEW TOOLS WorldClass Checklist
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
Content: UFC (existing as a separate document)
MEASURE TOOLS
Sustainability and Energy Management (existing as a separate document)
New Design Review Checklist (proposed) EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Relation to Other Tools: World-Class Checklist (Design Strategies)
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
Measuring Tools (based on a general consensus by the experts the reviewing tools should align with the POE tools /metrics)
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
Users: Services, Army, Navy and Air Force, Corps of Engineers and NAVFAC Review Board, and the A + E designers Future Development: Review tools are under development.
PROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
World-Class Reviewing Tools
WORLD-CLASS
REVIEWING TOOLS PROPOSED EXAMPLE Phase of Design
Area
Submittal
Design Strategy
Metric
S-1 Block Plan
Facility
Access Diagram
139, 2020, 145
Distance from parking to building entrance
1. Access and Way-finding
S-2 Schematic
Department
Arrival Sequence Diagram
139, 2020, 145
Travel distance from building entry to Department
1. Access and Way-finding
Department
Staff Flow Diagram
85, 96, 24, 145, 33, 179, 168, 2001
Travel distance from nurse station to patient care area
14. Optimize processes and workflow
Department
Patient Flow Diagram
85, 96, 24, 145, 33, 179, 168, 2001
Travel distance from waiting to patient care area
14. Optimize processes and workflow
Department
Zoning Plan
85, 96, 24, 145, 33, 179, 168, 2001
Square footage of Public, Patient and Clinical area, percentage of total area
14. Optimize processes and workflow
Facility, CSA, Room
Daylight and Views
22, 24, 153
Percentage of total Patient Care Rooms with daylight and views
10. Access to Daylight and Nature
Department
Visibility Diagrams
165, 248, 341
Sight lines from nurse station to patient care areas
8. High visibility, collaboration and effective communication
Room
Annotated Key Room Floor Plan
2022, 246, 169, 168, 179, 2001, 55, 172, 125, 33, 171, 131
Number and type of personal controls in patient care areas Size of Patient and Family Zone in patient care areas, percent of total room area Number of Safety Features (assistive devices, HWS)
2. Patient and family privacy, comfort and control 3. Patient and family involvement in care decisions 5. Safe Environment for patients
S-3 Concept Design
IV. Results / Findings
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Benchmarks Core Dimension
World-Class Reviewing Tools
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BLOCK PLAN 10 %
UFC
S1
UFC
Access Diagram
S1
Potential Metrics:
Travel distances from parking to entry (1)
UFC
Site Plans Floor Plans Elevations Equipment Plan Finish Schedules Narrative Net Area Net to gross area Cost Estimate
Arrival Sequence Staff Flow Diagrams Patient Flow Diagrams Zoning Plans Compliance w/ Space Planning S2 Criteria
Travel distances from building entry to department (1) Travel Distance from nurse station to pt. care area (14) Travel distance from waiting to pt. care area (14) SF & percent of total area for Public, Patient, Clinical & Provider Zones (14)
Current reviewIing tools
WorldClass
Researcher recommended reviewing tools
PROCESS
IV. Results / Findings
FINAL 65 %
FINAL 100 %
S3
UFC
UFC
S4
S5
Comprehensive Fire Protection Equipment Specifications
Corrected S3 Renderings
World-Class
Potential Metrics:
UFC
TECHNICAL 35 %
S2
Executive Summary Floor Plans w/ programmed spaces & circulation paths Narrative Net Area Net to gross area Cost Estimate
Block Plan Site Plans Floor Plans w/ circulation patterns & critical dimensions
World-Class
CONCEPT 30 %
SCHEMATIC 20 %
UFC
World-Class
Daylight and Views S3 Diagrams Visibility Diagrams Annotated key Room plans Compliance w/ templates
Potential Metrics:
Percentage of pt. care areas with daylight and views (10) Sight lines from nurse stations to pt. care areas (8) Personal Controls, # and type (2) SF and percent of total room area for Patient and Family zone (3) Safety features, # and type (5)
B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
World-Class
Final Revision of Compliance w/ Design Strategies, Space Planning Criteria and Templates
S4
S6
Final Drawings and Specifications Cost Estimate Instruction to Bidders
Architectural Review Process
RESULTS / FINDINGS
MEASURING TOOLS
MEASURING TOOLS
Purpose: Evaluate the performance of the facility, inform future planning and
PROCESS TOOLS
PPMD WC
design decisions.
CRITERIA
POLICY
Content:
S1 – S6 World-Class Healthcare future policy
Post-Occupancy Evaluation
GUIDING TOOLS
REVIEW TOOLS WorldClass Checklist
Facility Life Cycle Timeline
MEASURE TOOLS POE
EVOLVING VIEW POINT DIAGRAM
Eight Step POE process and methodology and 20 core dimensions Patients, Staff and Leadership Surveys Leadership Interviews Case Study of the Facility through plan take-off, walk-through, photos and
diagrams Relation to Other Tools:
Phase I Corporate Strategic Facilities Portfolio Planning
TRANSLATING
Phase II Requirements Planning
GUIDING
Phase IV Facility Activation & Operations
Phase III Design & Construction
MEASURING
REVIEWING
World-Class Design Strategies (Checklist) UFC, Space Planning Criteria and Templates Reviewing Tools Life Cycle Model: Facility Activation and Operations Phase IV
Future Development: The tools are currently been developed, there will be onPROJECT PHASES IV. Results / Findings
going development of the tools as future POEs get completed. B. Review of Components
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Measuring Tools
FACILITY LIFE CYCLE MODEL FRAMEWORK
1. STRATEGIC AND PORTFOLIO PLANNING
PRELIMINARY PFD
3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
2. REQUIREMENTS PLANNING
SEPS
PREDESIGN
BLOCK PLAN 10 %
SCHEMATIC 20 %
CONCEPT 30 %
TECHNICAL 35 %
FINAL 65 %
FINAL 100 %
CONSTRUCTION
4. ACTIVATION & OPERATIONS
NEXT CYCLE
PFD DD 1391 CIDM
PRIORITIES
S1 DA
TMA PFD/1391
S2
S4
UFC SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY WORLD-CLASS
A/E SELECTION
MISSION
S3
S5 UFC SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY WORLD-CLASS
DESIGN
S6
BID/BUILD
OCCUPY
POE CRITERIA
QUADRUPLE AIM Readiness Population Health Positive Patient Experience Cost
TEMPLATES / 1691
GUIDING TOOLS
SPACE PLANNING CRITERIA
PROCESS
UFC WORLD-CLASS SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT
POLICY & TOOLS
POLICY
DODI Sustainability and Energy World-Class Healthcare
IV. Results / Findings
CRITERIA TOOLS UFC Space Planning Criteria MIL-STD-1691 Templates
PROCESS TOOLS
SEPS DD 1391 CIDM
GUIDING TOOLS
World-Class Checklist Design Guidelines Case Studies
C. Overall Facility Life Cycle Management Process
REVIEWING TOOLS
UFC Sustainability & Energy World-Class
MEASURING TOOLS POE Toolkit
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
V.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Strengths and Limitations B. Conclusions and Next Steps
V. Conclusions
Table of Contents
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
STRENGTHS
This research study has been performed at an essential time where the MHS is rethinking the way they plan, design and execute facilities to deliver WorldClass Primary Care.
The process aimed at developing a full integration of the Facility Life Cycle framework that includes the Portfolio Planning and Management Division policies, criteria and tools, the efforts of the Health Facilities Steering Committee and the World-Class Initiative efforts. The interviews and focus groups have collected critical information that currently resides within each independent work grouP. It ultimately provided a link between the critical pieces that are necessary for
an integrated Facility Life Cycle Management Process to plan, design and execute World-Class Primary Care Clinics.
V. Conclusions
A. Strengths and Limitations
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
LIMITATIONS
 Most of the criteria tools are currently under development; therefore it was
difficult to evaluate how World-Class would be finally implemented within these tools.  MHS is a very complex system requiring more expert interviews with key experts responsible for each key process steps within the Facility Life Cycle Management process.
V. Conclusions
A. Strengths and Limitations
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
CONCLUSIONS
This study has provided insight into developing an integrated project delivery process by providing a Facility Like Cycle Framework that captures the MHS current process and tools, on-going developments and their future vision to plan, design and execute World-Class Primary Care Facilities. Revealed many of the complexities that exist within the MHS Facility Life
Cycle Management process and how the PPMD and World-Class policies, criteria and tools need to relate in order to have an integrated framework. Revealed post-occupancy evaluation as a critical step for continuous improvement of the World-Class design strategies, criteria and reviewing tools to deliver World-Class Healthcare.
V. Conclusions
B. Conclusions and Next Steps
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
NEXT STEPS
Continued work with the MHS to further develop the Facility Life Cycle Framework and key process steps, as well as the future developments of the guidance, reviewing and measuring tools. Future studies will focus on the development of a Universal Architectural Process Framework, informed by standardized guidance, reviewing and measuring tools to plan, design and execute World-Class Primary Care
Facilities. A flow chart of common pathways could then be developed
to inform
architects, facilities managers and healthcare organization planning future World-Class Primary Care Facilities.
IV. Conclusions
B. Conclusions and Next Steps
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special Thanks Dina Battisto, Primary Thesis Advisor David Allison, Member of my Thesis Committee Betty Baldwin, Member of my Thesis Committee NOBLIS MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM
Deborah A. Franqui, MS Student
July 14, 2011
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Clemson University
Bibliography American Institute of Architects, the (2006). The five phases of design [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://howdesignworks.aia.org/fivephases.asp Barker, J., Pocock, E., & Huber, C. (2010, November 10). The future of ambulatory care. Academy Journal. The American Institute of Architect. Retrieved from http://info.aia.org/blast_images/kc/aah_journal_2010_print.html Baxter, P. & Jack, P. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544-559. Bodenheimer, T., Chen, E., & Bennet, H.D. (2009). Confronting the growing burden of chronic disease: Can the U.S. health
care workforce do the job? Health Affairs, 28(1), 64-74. Cherry D.K., Woodwell D.A., Rechhtsteiner E.A. National Ambulatory Care Survey: 2005 Summary. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 387. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2007. Chupin, J.-P. (2011). Judgment by design: Towards a model for studying and improving the competition process in architecture and urban design. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27, 173-184. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.12.004 Center for Health Design, the (n.d.). Design Process [Webpage on evidence-based design process]. Retrieved from http://www.healthdesign.org/clinic-design/design-process Conway, J., Johnson, B., Edgman-Levitan, S. Schlucter, J., Ford, D., Sodomka, P., & Simmons, L. (2006). Partnering with patients and families to design a patient- and family-centered health care system [A white paper from the Institute for Family-Centered Care in collaboration with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement]. Retrieved from www.ipfcc.org/pdf/Roadmap.pdf Cullen, K.A., Hall, M.J., Golosinskiy, A. (2009, January 28). Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006 (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2009-1250). National Health Statistics Reports, no. 11. Revised September 4, 2009. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Hing, E., & Uddin, S. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Division of health Statistics. (2010). Visits to primary care delivery sites: United States, 2008 (NCHS Data Brief No. 47) Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality Healthcare in America. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Johnson, T. K. (2010). Ambulatory care stands out under reform. Journal of Healthcare Financial Management, 64(5), 53-63.
Malone, E., Mann-Dooks, J. R., & Strauss, J. (2007). Evidence-based design: Application in the MHS. Falls Church, VA: Noblis.
Bibliography
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Mann, E., Schuetz, B., & Rubin-Johnston, E. (2010, January 20). Remaking primary care: A framework for the future (New England Healthcare Institute report). Retrieved from http://www.nehi.net/publications/45/remaking_primary_care_a_framework_for_the_future
Manson, S.M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum, 32, 405-414. Marberry, S.O. (1995). Innovations in healthcare design. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. McCaig, L.F. (1999, June 17). National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 1997 outpatient department summary (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 99-1250). Advance data from vital & health statistics no. 307. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Noblis. (2009, September). Post occupancy evaluation (POE) (White paper for Tricare Management Activity, Military Health System, Pathway to an Innovation Program). Falls Church, VA: Noblis. Noblis (2010). Contracting: Doing business with Noblis [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.noblis.org/AboutNoblis/Contracting/Pages/default.aspx Nourjah, P. (1999, May 6). National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 1997 emergency department summary (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 99-1250 9-0324 (5/99)). Advance data from vital & health statistics no. 304. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Planetree, Inc. (2011). Putting patients first: Resources for patients [Webpage on patient-centered care]. Retrieved from http://www.planetree.org/Puttingpatientsfirst.html Preiser, W.F.E. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities, 13(11), 19-28. Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z., and White, E.T. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Preiser, W.F.E., & Schramm, U. (2002). Intelligent office building performance evaluation. Facilities, 20, 279-287. Preiser, W.F.E., & Vischer, J.C. (Eds.). (2005). Assessing building performance. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Ross, A., Williams, S.J., & Pavlock, E.J. (1998). Ambulatory care management. Albany, NY: Delmar. Russo, A., Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., and Wier, L. (2010, February). Hospital-based ambulatory surgery, 2007 (HCUP Statistical
Brief #86). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Retrieved from http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb86.pdf Schappert, S.M. (1992, April 30). National ambulatory medical care survey: 1990 summary (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 921250). Advance data from vital & health statistics no. 213. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics Schappert, S.M., & Rechtsteiner, E.A. (2011, April). Ambulatory medical care utilization estimates for 2007 (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2011-1740). Series 13, no. 168. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_13/sr13_169.pdf
Bibliography
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Bibliography (continued) Schieve, W.C. & Allen, P.M. (Eds.) (1982). Self-organization and dissipative structures: Applications in the physical and social sciences. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2011). 2011 stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2010). 2010 stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2008). 2008 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspxStarfield, B., Shi, L, & Macinko, J. (2005). Contribution
of primary care health systems and health. The Milbank Quarterly, 83(3), 457-502.
U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2008). The Military Health System Strategic Plan: A roadmap for
medical transformation. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/Libraries/Documents_Word_PDF_PPT_etc/2008_Strat_Plan_Final_-lowres.pdf U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2007). 2007 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2006). 2006 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2005). 2005 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2004). 2004 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2003). 2003 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2002). 2002 TRICARE stakeholder’s report. Retrieved from http://www.health.mil/About_MHS/StakeholdersReport.aspx U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (2002, March 15). Charter of the Health Facilities Steering Committee [Online pdf]. Retrieved from http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/_docs/hfsc_charter.pdf U.S. Department of Defense. Military Health System. (n.d.). Portfolio Planning and Management Division [PPMD Website]. Retrieved from http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/ppmd/index.cfm
Bibliography
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission
Bibliography (continued)
U.S. Department of Defense. TRICARE Management Activity. (2003, July 11). TRICARE Management Activity Charter. Retrieved from http://www.tricare.mil/charters/tmacharter.html Woodwell, D.A. (1999, May 20). National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 1997 summary (DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 99-1250 9-03332 (5/99)). Advance data from vital & health statistics no. 305. Hyattsville, MD: National Center
for Health Statistics.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning (Revised ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Bibliography
Copyrighted material. Please do not distribute without permission