MUSCMedical LinksCharleston LinksArchivesMedical EducatorSpeakers BureauSeminars and EventsResearch StudiesResearch GrantsCatalyst PDF FileCommunity HappeningsCampus News

Return to Main Menu

Currents

To Medical Center employees:

Our JCAHO consultants are conducting a mock survey on Oct. 21, 22 and 23. The mock survey will give us a report card on our progress with “continuous JCAHO readiness.” The actual survey is only one year away, and we must have our policies and systems in place well in advance.  Now is the time to get prepared.

On another matter, recently I asked Hal Currey, administrator of Facilities and Capital Improvements, to spearhead a work group to prepare recommendations on how we can improve the appearance of Medical Center entrances. The entrances of the Storm Eye Institute, Children’s and Main Hospitals and Clinical Sciences Building all require our attention. Once the work group completes its study, its recommendations will be disseminated.  In the meantime, anyone with suggestions can send ideas by e-mail to Kimberly Horan at horank@musc.edu.

Finally, Michael Irving, manager, Patient Care Systems, recently chaired a work group formed to develop standards for all institutionwide Medical Center policies. The intent is to achieve a consistent “look.” The group has completed its work and the policy template and guidelines will be made available on the Intranet during the week of Oct. 21. These standards only affect those departmental policies posted on the Intranet. Individual departments, however, may elect to use the new format for other policies as well. In the future, any new or revised policies posted on the Medical Center Intranet should conform to the new format.

Thank you very much. 
W. Stuart Smith
Vice President for Clinical Operations
and Executive Director, MUSC Medical Center

Presenting:

‘Top Gun,’ featuring the new documentation system

On the heels of the interdisciplinary care planning process presentation from the previous week, STAR Productions (Survey Teams Always Ready) presented the new hospital documentation system to the management team at the Oct. 15 communications meeting.

Nancy Davidson, co-chair of the documentation committee and nurse manager, 6 East and Dialysis, presented the new system, emphasizing its role in the interdisciplinary care planning process under the standards for assessment of patients and care of patients.

The timeline for adult medical and surgical documentation implementation was as follows:

  • Interdisciplinary progress notes and discharge orders, June 2002
  • Adult admission assessment, 24-hour adult patient record, interdisciplinary plan of care, September 2002.
Davidson detailed the following future initiatives:
  • Pediatric and critical care documentation implementation
  • Revision of nursing documentation audit
  • Revision of “Reference Guide to the Patient Care Management Documentation System”
  • Project evaluation and follow-up
STAR Awards
Several STAR Awards were presented to top performers—Mary Hughes, June Stovall and Laurie Zone-Smith—for developing and teaching the new nursing intensity program.

Upcoming special attractions will feature:

  • “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” a mock survey. Oct. 21 – 23.
  • “Fatal Attraction,” starring those ever lethal “no-brainers.” Oct. 29.

Recommendation calls for new hospital to stay on present campus

The consensus of the MUSC administration, the Clinical Facilities Plan steering committee and consultants is for the MUSC replacement hospital to remain on the peninsula provided certain conditions are met to make the site viable.

Hal Currey, administrator for Facilities and Capital Improvements, gave an update on plans to the management team at the Oct. 15 communications meeting, indicating that the board of trustees is expected to make a final decision at its Dec. 13 meeting. “Redeveloping on the peninsula is the recommended option if site viability can be achieved,” Currey said, pointing out that a survey of other medical universities that have undertaken major expansion plans shows that the majority opted not to split their campuses.

Currey said that MUSC needs some 150 additional hospital beds by 2010 just to meet the demands for current capacity, the projected impact of market dynamics and population growth.  As a first step, phase one of the replacement hospital will focus on cardiac, vascular, imaging and other procedure-based services.

“Creating a viable site on the peninsula will require changes,” Currey said. A number of issues need to be addressed regarding accessibility, parking, utilities, zoning and amenities. More specifically, the plan outlines a development option along the west perimeter of the existing campus on Courtney Street.  As part of this option, potential collaboration for renewal of facilities may be possible between MUSC and the Veteran’s Administration.

MUSC engaged two consulting firms to guide the process and make recommendations on feasibility plans—NBBJ and KSA. “Our consultants are highly professional and very, very skilled,” Currey said. 

The clinical facilities planning project concept has proceeded on schedule from discovery and analysis to direction and development. The conclusions are that the current patient care facilities on this campus are obsolete, undersized and outdated, limiting MUSC’s ability to achieve more efficient operations and to adapt to future innovations in care.

The expansion plans are designed to provide an attractive and accessible environment for patients, while allowing enough flexibility for the facility to grow, Currey said.

A Clinical Facilities Plan has been developed by the Steering Committee and the consultant team. Six key findings of this report are outlined:

1. The current situation will be difficult to sustain long term.

2. The demand for health care services in South Carolina, particularly in the coastal region, is projected to grow as the population expands and ages.

3. Successful patient service and organizational performance strategies are essential to the future of the Medical University clinical enterprise.

4. Creating a viable site on the peninsula will require some key changes, such as zoning, traffic routing, and land acquisition.

5. Redeveloping on the peninsula is the recommended option, if site viability can be achieved.

6. If the necessary accommodations cannot be achieved, the clinical enterprise must move off the peninsula.

Further details on these findings and other specifics of the Clinical Facilities Planning effort can be accessed on the project’s Web site at http://www.musc.edu/cfp (see “What’s New”).

Quoting from the findings, Currey said, “The decision process to effect a move (off the peninsula) can be disruptive and divisive, and should only be undertaken in the absence of viable alternatives. . . Separating the academic and clinical enterprises would likely be detrimental and would ‘tear the fabric’ of the MUSC organization.”

Currey said that efforts are being made to work closely with the City of Charleston to work out the accommodations that will be necessary for the site to remain on the peninsula. Simultaneously, options are being secured to acquire property close to the airport as an alternative site for campus development. 

At the October meeting of the Board of Trustees following deliberations on the topic during a formal retreat, the administration was asked to move forward with specific elements of the project. A study on site viability on the peninsula will be presented for review at the Board’s next meeting in December. Also, procedures for selecting an architect and an external firm to provide a financial feasibility study are under way. 

The proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

  • Presentation to the board, Oct. 10
  • Board action, Dec. 13
  • Engage architect, Feb. 14, 2003
  • Begin design of new facility, April 1, 2003
  • Receive final feasibility study, April 1, 2003
  • Secure financing, Sept. 1, 2003
  • Receive bids, April 1, 2004
  • Begin construction, June 6, 2004
  • Occupancy, Oct. 1, 2007
‘Searching?’ campaign unveiled
Members of MUSC’s marketing team revealed the secret behind a recent marketing campaign. Billboards all over the Charleston area sported the single word —“Searching?” for the past several weeks, triggering a buzz of speculation from commuters and radio personalities alike.

The answer—shared by Lynne Barber, manager, Marketing Communications, and Mark Ruppel, marketing manager—is MUSChealth.com, the Medical University’s 
Web site for comprehensive health care information.

The Web site has attracted more than 985,000 user sessions during the past year, including nearly 1,000 direct inquiries to MUSC eNurse. The eNurse service allows Internet users to communicate directly to MUSC nurses who can answer questions about health matters as well as MUSC services.     MUSChealth.com also has a number of interactive features that allow users to gauge, for example, their heart health and body mass index.

Barber also applauded the Medical Center for earning highest marks in a consumer survey conducted by the National Research Corporation. For the fifth year in a row, residents of the tri-county have said MUSC has the best doctors, nurses, overall quality of care, and other key elements of delivering health care services.

“This is fabulous,” Barber said. “We should all feel very proud.”
 
 
 
 
 

Catalyst Online is published weekly, updated as needed and improved from time to time by the MUSC Office of Public Relations for the faculty, employees and students of the Medical University of South Carolina. Catalyst Online editor, Kim Draughn, can be reached at 792-4107 or by email, catalyst@musc.edu. Editorial copy can be submitted to Catalyst Online and to The Catalyst in print by fax, 792-6723, or by email to petersnd@musc.edu or catalyst@musc.edu. To place an ad in The Catalyst hardcopy, call Community Press at 849-1778.