Accountability Resources | Case Review
In maintaining our culture and core values, one of the processes that we have established is a case review process.
It makes most sense that a case review would be a medical case review. If we have an unlicensed veterinary assistant to a certified veterinary technician or a veterinary nurse and a veterinarian, if there’s an issue with patient care, something where medication is dosed wrong or restraint isn’t appropriate or something just related to medical, it’s easy to say that a case review would end up being black and white.
This is what was done with patient care, but it goes beyond that.
Case reviews can actually be an adherence to process and procedure. How was this estimate made? How did we answer this phone call?
How did this interaction that we had on a one on one basis impact our ability to serve the patient and to educate the caregiver?
A case review can be one of two things.
It can either be a proactive case review, which is initiated internally.
It also can be a reactive case review, which can be instituted again, either internally, but also can be externally driven, whether it be from a caregiver or referring veterinary practice. The first one that we have is a proactive review in that process, we have built in that any staff member, regardless of position, can request a case review without fear of retribution. Once a case review is initiated, it sets off a series of events. It starts out by the senior accountability officer reviewing the case, whether that be the medical record, any legal documentation or invoicing related to it, and then follows up with a series of interviews with the staff involved.
A reactive case review is instituted when we have a negative outcome and it can occur either internally driven by our team or can be external from a complaint received either from a caregiver or from a referring veterinarian. We still follow the same processes outlined as before of reviewing the case, speaking to team members. However, it is in this case review process that if at any point we have a team member that fails to uphold accountability, we will institute an after action review to ensure that we can maintain unity.
Does the individual kind of fall back into blame or excuses and saying, well, I’m not the one that’s a problem. This other person is actually the reason why I failed.
And it’s like now we’re starting to include more people into this accountable event. So to look at these next tools, they do play very much hand in hand with one another.
But it’s just a matter of on one hand, is this going to be an individual based solution, an individual based accountable event, or does it need to be sort of a group collaboration?