Moffitt Cancer Center



RFP Outpatient Scheduling Optimization Vendor Conference CallTuesday, October 2, 2018Moffitt Participants: Lori Perks, Desiree Hanson, Matt Bednar, Lynne Hildreth, Cristina Perez, Karen Wartenberg, Carolina CrouchVendors:AccentureDamon MillsKenny EsheAnkura Consulting Group, LLCSharon CarterCraig AhrensPhil DeBruzziMeg UnderwoodAtlantix Partners LLCWalter MoresDeloitte Consulting, LLPJerry BrunoMichael Cronine4 Services, LLCJoseph PaulusBill RoweLynette CzarkowskiJudy GagnaTom BarnesFTI Consulting, IncMaura ConwayMeg ConnorsHEI HealthMarj GreenJared SuterHuron Consulting GroupKritiya GeeLindsay RubinIndian River Solutions, LLCJanet Hofmeister POC 321-795-0832Christina PhillipsDuncan PringleOptumAmanda SteeleKyle ChadseyDuane ReynoldsPremier IncKearin Schulte, Joshua StitesPremier Business & Technology Consulting Group LLCApril TaylorPublic Sector Performance AssociatesMonica SanchezSummIT Healthcare Consulting Services dba GosummITCarlos CarciaVinod MegnauthTek SystemsKevin BerryThe Chartis GroupStacy MelvinMichael D’OlioStephanie HinesCynthia BaileyLori Perks started the call by having Moffitt and vendor introductions. Jack Kolosky gave an overview of the RFP process and provided answers to some of the following questions. Q. What are the main drivers for this analysis? A. Relatively poor patient satisfaction with the process (mostly phone), continuity amongst specialties (particularly rad onc, clinics, diagnostic imaging, etc.). High cost per transaction; largely an effort that requires continuous human intervention. Define and work towards emerging industry best practicesThe key focuses are:Centralized vs de-centralized call center setup including patient navigation Analysis of provider/appointment capacity (template maximization, best-practice template construction)Industry best-in-class recommendations for overwhelming demand vs capacity (assuming provider capacity is truly maxed out, see above)Emergent slots, quick-access slots, same-day accessRight patient, right provider/service including maximizing location-based services (for example sending patients to closest location for lab services/tests)We’re moving towards virtual visits, so recommendations on how best to schedule these would be idealQ. Is the response limited to outpatient appointment management and processing with no inpatient, specialty clinic, cancer screening, or external specialist appt processes to be included? A. This response should be targeted to the outpatient appointment management and processing, which are primarily specialty clinics.Q. How many interfacing systems are there to the current scheduling system and what is their purpose? A. The tightest integration is with Soarian. Interfacing systems in production: Soarian, Hologic, Magview, Patient Keeper, Visit Manager, Bio Informatics, Provation, HI-IQ, Brain Research, Ritspool. Interfacing systems in development: Mosaiq, Portal, Redox.Q. Will we have access to a Test or Training system and Test Data to exercise the current functionality? We have three non-prod domains (CERT, MOCK, BUILD) for Cerner Millennium and two non-prod/test domains for Soarian (Test 1, Test 2). It is noteworthy to mention that our interfaces are moving quite a bit to accommodate projects in specific domains and/or testing and training events prior to deployment. There are also scheduled domain refreshes to keep the domains in sync with PROD; and during those times a certain domain may not be available.Q. Can you further explain the development of the Guideline for Deficiencies? What kind of monthly reporting would this entail?A. At this point it is unsure. We are interested in enhancing current reporting to better track, monitor and manage performance.Q. Is the effort to develop the final proposal requested in the RFP to be included in the schedule and cost estimate for this response?A. Yes.Q. Besides the outline given in the RFP, is there a standard format for the technical proposal response? Is there a preferred contract type (i.e., FFP) and format for the pricing proposal?A. There is no standard format, PDF and Excel are fine. Assuming FFP = Firm-Fixed-Price, I don’t think that’s what we are requiring. This is also not a technical proposal in the sense that we are focused on IT only. This is more of a process review/improvement. Personally, I’d be flexible on a price range.Can you provide the weighted formula for the selection criteria?The proposals are reviewed/shortlisted based on the information provided from the vendors.In the SOW, under Process for Scheduling Appointments, there is a bullet point: Application of Standardized Templates and Workload Leveling. What would the templates apply to specifically?It would apply to provider templates as a more standardized process is needed in order to be consistent in all clinical programs.Is MCC’s current state (for outpatient scheduling processes and procedures and standards) currently documented? Yes, documentation will be provided including process narratives.The RFP references “scheduling according to patient’s clinical needs and preferences”. Are patients’ preferences currently captured somewhere?This statement in the RFP was more referring to specific needs at a point in time rather than global needs. However, phone calls are currently recorded if a consultant wishes to review examples. Information isn’t necessarily captured or easy to analyze in terms of patients who did not get an appointment at their desired time.What are/is the clinical and patient accounting system(s) MCC currently has in place?Cerner Millenium Win32Scheduling (and Millenium Powerchart) is used. We understand that Cerner intends to phase it out in the coming years, however we cannot yet move to their Java-based scheduling as it is not fully developed for orders to scheduling workflow in an oncology setting. We use Soarian for patient accounting and registration.Can MCC share previous employee satisfaction survey results?Yes, we can share them. The survey results puts us in the 89th percentile with a 4.33 score on a scale of 1 to 5. Q. Should the RFP response include a full proposal for implementation to hardwire improvements for long term sustainment, or, will that request be made of the group awarded the bid? If so, is MCC open to implementing new technology or improving current technology/integrations as a possible outcome to this assessment? A. The main goal is to optimize and improve the technology integration so this wouldn’t be the first choice. Implementation for long term sustainment would be bid out at a later time.The following questions were asked during the call.Q. Does Moffitt Cancer Center have any consulting for this process? A. Some consulting has been explored with high level process ideas but nothing substantial. Moffitt has been partnering with a vendor for online registration (Vecna) and a vendor for online virtual visits (Evisit); we are currently working with Cerner consulting on some system imprvoements. Q. What module is Soarian/Cerner? A. Soarian FinancialsVersion 4.200, but Soarian isn’t utilized for clinical or scheduling. Cerner Millennium Win32 for scheduling. You may hear people at Moffitt refer to it as “Capstone”, however that isn’t the actual name of the product but something coined internally.Q. What is the opportunity to improve assuming that scheduling includes capacity on the MMG side?Q. Proposal to be included in RFP for long term? A. Yes, looking for something in the long run.Q. Overview in Supplier Diversity related to prime/contracting?A. There is info provided in the RFP posted online depending on whether it is tier 1 or tier 2. This should be noted in the responses in order to help Moffitt Cancer Center meet the diversity goals. If a company is minority certified, info will need to be provided.Q. What is the percentage of centralized/de-centralized scheduling? A. Volume is 80% centralized and 20% de-centralized. Of the centralized, 80% is on site in 20+ clinic locations which report up centrally to Patient Access, and 20% is in a call center.Q. Is the process broken down by specialty? A. It’s broken down by subspecialty and only specialty at a tertiary level.Q. What is the patient, physician and scheduler satisfaction with the current system?A. From all points of view, the current system is complicated and creates frustration. The idea is to meet the demand versus capacity and the ability to enhance the process.Q. Is the RFP form needed to be completed online? A. No, it doesn’t need to be completed.Q. Do schedulers do pre-registration or just appointment confirmation? A. Yes, schedulers on the phone perform pre-registration.Q. What is the timeline for the initial assessment? A. As soon as possible, it will be done based on work that has already been done.Q. Are there metrics in place for scheduling? A. Yes, metrics for turnaround time, quality, productivity and other robust metrics are in place.Q. Are there any ways to identify a minority vendor for this RFP? A. No, but the information about all the participating vendors will be posted online. Q. What is the interoperability with scheduling? A. Due to the tight orders to scheduling workflow, we struggle with any scheduling integrations. Lori Perks ended the discussion by reminding vendors to provide a list of the participants in the call from each organization and also noted the bid packages are due on Monday, October 15, 2018 by 2:00 p.m. EST to rfp@.?Additional Questions:Q. As a result of this project, is Moffitt looking to create a wholly centralized call center, inclusive of necessary technologies, appropriate staffing and workforce projections and associated facilities analysis to operationalize?A. A fully centralized call center is certainly our bias, but we are open to the solution that best serves the needs of the patients and the cancer center.Q. Could you provide additional detail regarding current call volume?A. We receive roughly 3,000 calls a day, across all of the teams. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download