Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Health facilities
- Creators: Smithwick, Jake
- Creators: Baird, Rebecca Therese
Description
Emerging in the late 1960s, the Free Clinic Movement represented an attempt to provide equitable, accessible, and free health care to all. Originally aimed at helping drug addicts, hippies, and runaways, free clinics were community-led organizations that ran solely on donations and volunteers, and were places where “free” meant more than just monetarily free - it meant free from judgment, moralizing, or bureaucratic red tape. This dissertation is an institutional history of the Los Angeles Free Clinic (LAFC), which, as a case study, serves to illustrate the challenges and cooperation inherent in the broader Free Clinic Movement. My project begins by investigating the links between the Free Clinic Movement and aspects of Progressive era reform, health care policy, and stigmatization of disease. By the 1960s, the community health centers formed under Lyndon Johnson, along with the growth of the New Left and Counterculture, set the stage for the emergence of the free clinics. In many ways, the LAFC was an anti-Establishment establishment, walking a fine line between appealing to members of the Counterculture, and forming a legitimate and structurally sound organization. The central question of this project is: how did the LAFC develop and then grow from a small anti-Establishment health care center to a respected part of the health care safety net system of Los Angeles County? Between 1967 and 1975, the LAFC evolved, developing strong ties to the Los Angeles County Department of Health, local politicians, and even the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). By 1975, as the LAFC moved into a new and larger building, it had become an accepted part of the community.
ContributorsBaird, Rebecca Therese (Author) / Garcia, Matthew (Thesis advisor) / Hibner Koblitz, Ann (Committee member) / Delmont, Matthew (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
The purpose of this paper is to present a case study on the application of the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) quality improvement methodology and tools to study the analysis and improvement of facilities management (FM) services at a healthcare organization. Research literature was reviewed concerning whether or not LSS has been applied in healthcare-based FM, but no such studies have been published. This paper aims to address the lack of an applicable methodology for LSS intervention within the context of healthcare-based FM. The Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) framework was followed to test the hypothesis that LSS can improve the service provided by an FM department responsible for the maintenance and repair of furniture and finishes at a large healthcare organization in the southwest United States of America. Quality improvement curricula and resources offered by the case study organization equipped the FM department to apply LSS over the course of a five-month period. Qualitative data were gathered from pre- and post-intervention surveys while quantitative data were gathered with the Organization’s computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) software. Overall, LSS application proved to be useful for the intended purpose. The author proposes that application of LSS by other FM departments to improve their services could also be successful, which is noteworthy and deserving of continued research.
ContributorsShirey, William T (Author) / Sullivan, Kenneth (Thesis advisor) / Smithwick, Jake (Committee member) / Lines, Brian (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
ABSTRACT
Academic literature and industry benchmarking reports were reviewed to determine the way facilities benchmarking reports were perceived in the healthcare industry. Interviews were conducted through a Delphi panel of industry professionals who met experience and other credential requirements. Two separate rounds of interviewing were conducted where each candidate was asked the same questions to determine the current views of benchmarking reports and associated data in the healthcare industry. The questions asked in the second round were developed from the answers to the first-round questions. The research showed the panel preferred changes in the data collection methods as well as changes in the way the data is presented. The need for these changes was unanimous among the members of the panel. The main recommendations among the group were:
1. An interactive method such as a member portal with the ability to customize, run scenarios, and save data is the preferred method.
2. Facilities Management (FM) teams are often not included in the data collection of the benchmark reports. Including FM groups would allow more accuracy and more detailed data resulting in more accurate and in-depth reports.
3. More consistency and “apples to apples” comparisons need to be provided in the reports. More categories and variables need to be added to the reports to offer more in depth comparisons and assessments between buildings. Identifiers to help the users compare the physical condition of their facility to others needs to be included. Suggestions are as follows:
a. Facility Condition Index (FCI)- easily available to all participants and allows an idea of the comparison of upkeep and maintenance of their facility to that of others.
b. An indicator on whether the comparison buildings are Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) accredited.
4. Gross Square Footage (GSF) is not an accurate assessment on its own. Too many variables are left unidentified to offer an accurate assessment with this method alone.
Academic literature and industry benchmarking reports were reviewed to determine the way facilities benchmarking reports were perceived in the healthcare industry. Interviews were conducted through a Delphi panel of industry professionals who met experience and other credential requirements. Two separate rounds of interviewing were conducted where each candidate was asked the same questions to determine the current views of benchmarking reports and associated data in the healthcare industry. The questions asked in the second round were developed from the answers to the first-round questions. The research showed the panel preferred changes in the data collection methods as well as changes in the way the data is presented. The need for these changes was unanimous among the members of the panel. The main recommendations among the group were:
1. An interactive method such as a member portal with the ability to customize, run scenarios, and save data is the preferred method.
2. Facilities Management (FM) teams are often not included in the data collection of the benchmark reports. Including FM groups would allow more accuracy and more detailed data resulting in more accurate and in-depth reports.
3. More consistency and “apples to apples” comparisons need to be provided in the reports. More categories and variables need to be added to the reports to offer more in depth comparisons and assessments between buildings. Identifiers to help the users compare the physical condition of their facility to others needs to be included. Suggestions are as follows:
a. Facility Condition Index (FCI)- easily available to all participants and allows an idea of the comparison of upkeep and maintenance of their facility to that of others.
b. An indicator on whether the comparison buildings are Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) accredited.
4. Gross Square Footage (GSF) is not an accurate assessment on its own. Too many variables are left unidentified to offer an accurate assessment with this method alone.
ContributorsChalmers, Jeffrey (Author) / Sullivan, Kenneth (Thesis advisor) / Smithwick, Jake (Committee member) / Hurtado, Kristen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020