Program Management Office

Outpatient Endoscopy Procedure Center

Objective

  • To discuss what went well and what we could have done better during the Project’s Implementation

Meeting Attendees

Patrick Headley, Mark Joczik, Kevin Mays, Steve Prevost, Bryan Sauer

Project Lifecycle Information
Project Lifecycle
/ Project Planning Project Implementation Project Close
Knowledge Area
Definitions
What Worked Well / Describe the lesson learned that worked so that a novice would understand.
Recommendation / Provide a recommendation for continued use for each lesson learned that worked well.
What Didn’t Work Well / Describe the lesson learned that did not work so that a novice would understand. Add/Delete numbers as needed for each knowledge area.
Improvement / Provide a recommendation for improvement for each lesson learned that did not work well. Include details such as: 1. Role/Position of who needs to make the change; 2. Include the details for required modification; 3. Describe the steps for follow through; 4. Provide a due date for the change. Add/Delete numbers as needed for each knowledge area.
Scope
What Worked Well
Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well /
  1. Scope changed significantly from the beginning of the projectwith ECT and Pain Management originally included in building occupants. Significant time and money was spent on planning before ECT and Pain Management services decided to drop out.
  2. Additional lab devices requested 2-3 months prior to go live which created urgency for Lab IT to order install and test just prior to go live.
  3. Original plan was for four of five rooms to be activated at go live. Due to resource constraints,one additional room was not opened which started equipment warranty earlier than necessary.

Improvement /
  1. Conduct scope meetings early in the project life cycle to identify regulatory and code requirement for potential occupants.
  2. Conduct formal scope, service requirements and corresponding equipment needs early in the project life cycle

Schedule
What Worked Well /
  1. Planning for project started early and provided sufficient time to optimize design.
  2. Go live took place as scheduled.

Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well /
  1. Date of occupancy was delayed which affected the ability to get supplies stocked and people oriented in time for go live.
  2. Device testing started late which necessitated the hiring of an Epic consultant to assist in testing prior to meet go live.

Improvement /
  1. Clarify all activities and requirements needed for end user occupancy to the project team to allow sufficient planning.
  2. Communicate risks and likelihood of missing project deadlines sooner to project owners and project team to provide the opportunity to mitigate risk

Budget
What Worked Well /
  1. The budget was appropriate for this project although a budget increase was needed for canopy and associated site work (11/2/16)

Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well
Improvement
Quality
What Worked Well
Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well /
  1. Approval of Anesthesia medicationstook move over 4 months. (1/26/17)
  2. Wooden paneling in storeroom delay sign off from Infectious Disease group and necessitated replacement with wallboard.
  3. GFI receptacles were not installed near Medivators equipment (water source).
  4. Plumbing – incorrect sized pipe installed (3/8” vs. ½”) plumbing for Medivators

Improvement
Communication
What Worked Well /
  1. Monthly then bi-weekly meetings provided sufficient information to the project team.
  2. Meeting minutes with Action Items provided the team with information needed for the project.

Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well /
  1. Device installation issues were not raised to project leadership on a timely basis.

Improvement
RiskManagement
What Worked Well /
  1. Reduced number of patient cases were schedule during first week of site opening to allow staff to acclimate to the new space.
  2. Equipment vendors provided at-the-elbow support during go live.

Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well /
  1. Training time for alarm system functionality was not sufficient as it resulting in false claims that the system was not working properly.

Improvement /
  1. Augment/enhance end user training on site security features and system use in the new space.

Human Resources
What Worked Well /
  1. The site had an appropriate number of nurses for go live.

Recommendation /
  1. Start hiring process early enough to hire and train nursing staff prior to go live.

What Didn’t Work Well
Improvement
Procurement
What Worked Well /
  1. Used CME, equipment aggregator, for small equipment (TVs, flowmeters, fridge) to coordinate equipment purchases and deliveries.

Recommendation
What Didn’t Work Well /
  1. Address for new facility was entered into Medical Center procurement system after incorrect deliveries were made, resulting in additional effort to move material to the correct location.

Improvement /
  1. Confirm with Procurement that new site address is entered and ready for use with new equipment and supply orders.

Rev-0.1 4/3/2015 /mo /cb