DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study has been carried out by using a methodology combining an in-depth literature review with a comparison framework, which is called as the "Framework for Comparing Business Process Improvement Methods." The framework is composed of seven dimensions and has been adapted from four recognized, related frameworks. In addition to the in-depth review of related literature and the adapted comparison framework, researchers have conducted several interviews with healthcare BPI practitioners in different hospitals, to attain their opinions of BPI methods and tools used in their practices.
FINDINGS: The main results have indicated that significant improvements have been achieved by implementing BPIMs in the healthcare domain according to related literature. However, there were some shortfalls in the existing methods that need to be resolved. The most important of these has been the shortfall in representing and analyzing targeted domain knowledge during improvement phases. The tool currently used for representing the domain, specifically flowcharts, is very abstract and does not present the domain in a clear form. The flowchart tool also fails to clearly present the separation of concerns between business processes and the information systems processes that support a business in a given domain.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study can be useful for BPI practitioners and researchers, mainly within the healthcare domain. The findings can help these groups to understand BPIMs shortfalls and encourage them to consider how BPIMs can be potentially improved.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This researchers of this paper have proposed a comparison framework for highlighting popular BPIMs in the healthcare domain, along with their uses and shortfalls. In addition, they have conducted a deep literature review based on the practical results obtained from different healthcare institutions implementing unique BPIMs around the world. There has also been valuable interview feedback attained from BPI leaders of specific hospitals in Saudi Arabia. This combination is expected to contribute to knowledge of BPIMs from both theoretical and practical points of view.
RESULTS: An overall of 1839 diabetes patients participated in the study. The results have shown that direct and indirect costs are positively associated with the participants' socio-demographic characteristics, except for household income and educational status. The annual total cost of diabetes care was USD 740.1, amongst which the share of the direct cost was USD 646.7, and the indirect cost was USD 93.65. Most direct costs comprised medicine (USD 274.5) and hospitalization (USD 319.7). In contrast, the productivity loss of the patients had the highest contribution to the indirect cost (USD 81.36).
CONCLUSION: This study showed that direct costs significantly contributed to diabetes's overall cost in Pakistan and overall diabetes management estimated to be 1.67% (USD 24.42 billion) of the country's total gross domestic product. The expense of medications and hospitalization mostly drove the direct cost. Additionally, patients' loss of productivity contributed significantly to the indirect cost. It is high time for healthcare policymakers to address this huge healthcare burden. It is time to develop a thorough diabetes management plan to be implemented nationwide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at MOH hospitals in Jordan, from August to November 2010. A total of 138 patients and 49 caregivers were involved in the study. An economic evaluation study was used to analyze the burden of hemodialysis treatment at MOH, Jordan. Direct medical costs were estimated through micro and macro costing from the provider's perspective. Patients' and caregivers' costs were included to calculate direct non-medical costs. Human capital approach was employed to evaluate the productivity loss for indirect cost and premature death and potential year life loss was used to estimate the premature death cost.
RESULTS: The total burden of hemodialysis at MOH, Jordan was USD17.70 million per year. Cost per session was $72 and the annual cost per patient was $9976. Direct medical cost was $7.20 million (41%) and direct non-medical cost was $2.02 million (11%). On the other hand, indirect cost (productivity loss) was $8.48 million (48%). All 722 patients on hemodialysis at MOH hospitals consumed 2.7% of MOH budget.
CONCLUSIONS: Costs of treating and managing patients on hemodialysis at MOH hospitals in Jordan are substantial. Therefore, efforts should be taken to slow down the progress of renal failure to save resources and a comparative study with other modalities, such as continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation, should be considered.