Medical Device/Healthcare Simulation

THE PROBLEM As the average age of the United State population gets older, certain cancer screening test have become more common. As a result, the need to increase capacity to service more patients each day has become a primary concern. The current testing procedure uses a diagnostic device that is expensive and requires extensive patient set-up and prep time. In addition, the device requires skilled labor to disassemble, clean, reassemble, and sterilize it. Due to current protocols, each device can only be used two times per day.

A new disposable device has been developed to facilitate a reduction in the patient prep time and eliminate costly refurbishment of the current permanent device. The disposable device is less expensive than the permanent device but is used only once. This raised some key questions for potential clients.

If the disposable device is used and patient test rates increase by 40 percent, will the additional revenue be enough to cover the cost of using the device? Second, with the increase in patient flow, can the current configuration of the same day surgical centers accommodate the increased demand on patient prep and recovery?

The medical device manufacturer decided that a simulation model would prove to hospitals and clinics that the new disposable device would provide more revenue than the current method.

BUILDING THE MODEL The simulation model was designed so that the manufacturing representatives could quickly configure it using an Excel spreadsheet to figure in the arrival of patients, capacity of patient waiting/prep areas, surgical bays, recovery stations, and staffing requirements. It produces a model of the current process and procedure, comparing it against the proposed process and procedure using the new disposable device. Animation shows both scenarios side by side while data is exported to comparable spreadsheets.

Members of the medical device manufacturing company and engineers from Flexsim Software Products Inc. developed the model. Team members were assigned specific responsibilities such as data preparation and gathering, scenario development, and device configuration. Once the model was completed, extensive peer review assessed the validity of the data inputs, model assumptions, and output results. configuration at potential sites. Data sets were evaluated and prepared for quick model

RESULTS Results were categorized into two main groups: facility utilization and financial benefits. Facility utilization reported things like patient wait times, patient check-in and paperwork times, patient prep time, prep room usage, surgical bay usage and turnaround time, recovery, discharge, and clinic staffing. Financial benefits compared the cost of resources, staffing, and equipment as a function of the increase n the patient procedures. scenario and then compared. These costs were aggregated for each

The results showed that changes in testing protocol and staffing were needed when the disposable device was used. The costs for some of these changes were not predicted before the simulation model was used. Bottlenecks in the recovery process due to the increase in patient flow had to be resolved. The model was able to show the impact of increased numbers of patients, available cost savings, and procedure changes needed to facilitate the use of the disposable device. The bottom line was a 20 percent increase in revenue over and above the added costs of changing from the current testing procedure. This was less than the estimated increase before the simulation model was developed, but it was well within the acceptable range to implement the new procedure.

SCREEN SHOT OF MODEL