Posted on by Judy

Orlando S Arnold Palmer Hospital Founded In 1989 Specializes In Treatment Of Wom

Orlando’s Arnold Palmer Hospital, founded in 1989, specializes in treatment of women and children and is
renowned for its high-quality rankings (top 10% of 2000 benchmarked hospitals), its labor and delivery volume (more than 16,000 births per year), and its neonatal intensive care unit (one of the highest survival rates in the nation). But quality medical practices and high patient satisfaction require costly inventory—some $30 million per year and thousands of SKUs (“SKU” means ‘stock keeping unit’). With pressure on medical care to manage and reduce costs, Arnold Palmer Hospital has turned toward controlling its inventory with just-in-time (JIT) techniques.
Within the hospital, for example, drugs are now distributed at nursing workstations via dispensing machines (almost like vending machines) that electronically track patient usage and post the related charge to each patient. The dispensing stations are refilled each night, based on patient demand and prescriptions written by doctors.
To address JIT issues externally, Arnold Palmer Hospital turned to a major distribution partner, McKesson General Medical, which as a first-tier supplier provides the hospital with about one-quarter of all its medical/surgical inventory. McKesson supplies sponges, basins, towels, mayo stand covers, syringes, and hundreds of other medical/surgical items. To ensure coordinated daily delivery of inventory purchased from McKesson, an account executive has been assigned to the hospital on a full-time basis, as well as two other individuals who address customer service and product issues. The result has been a drop in Central Supply average daily inventory from $400,000 to $114,000 since JIT.
JIT success has also been achieved in the area of custom surgical packs. Custom surgical packs are the sterile coverings, disposable plastic trays, gauze, and the like, specialized to each type of surgical procedure. Arnold Palmer Hospital uses 10 different custom packs for various surgical procedures. “Over 50,000 packs are used each year, for a total cost of about $1.5 million,” says George DeLong, head of Supply-Chain Management.
The packs are not only delivered in a JIT manner but packed that way as well. That is, they are packed in the reverse order they are used so each item comes out of the pack in the sequence it is needed. The packs are bulky, expensive, and must remain sterile. Reducing the inventory and handling while maintaining an assured sterile supply for scheduled surgeries presents a challenge to hospitals.
Here is how the supply chain works: Custom packs are assembled by a packing company with components supplied primarily from manufacturers selected by the hospital, and delivered by McKesson from its local warehouse. Arnold Palmer Hospital works with its own surgical staff (through the Medical Economics Outcome Committee) to identify and standardize the custom packs to reduce the number of custom pack SKUs. With this integrated system, pack safety stock inventory has been cut to one day.
The procedure to drive the custom surgical pack JIT system begins with a “pull” from the doctors’ daily surgical schedule. Then, Arnold Palmer Hospital initiates an electronic order to McKesson between 1:00 and 2:00 P.M. daily. At 4:00 A.M. the next day, McKesson delivers the packs. Hospital personnel arrive at 7:00 A.M. and stock the shelves for scheduled surgeries. McKesson then reorders from the packing company, which in turn “pulls” necessary inventory for the quantity of packs needed from the manufacturers.
Arnold Palmer Hospital’s JIT system reduces inventory investment, expensive traditional ordering, and bulky storage, and supports quality with a sterile delivery.
There are inherent benefits of using a pull strategy to manage inventory. By focusing on the customer’s orders to generate production, you make only what is demanded, eliminating wasted time in producing what isn’t needed, wasted materials that might not be needed, and, the need for less working capital to be tied up in inventory and the associated costs of acquiring that working capital.
Running Head: PUSH STRATEGY Push StrategyStudent’s NameInstitution PUSH STRATEGY 2 A push strategy consolidates the assets of retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers to makeconsumer interest…
 
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

Related posts:

  1. Co-cultures
  2. Question: How do internal controls such as separation of duties, redundancy, and centralized processes discourage employees from committing fraudulent acts why are some small businesses more susceptible to employee fraud and theft? Explain. The High Cost of Theft and Fraud Owners and managers want to believe that their employees are honest, hardworking, and have only the company’s best interests at heart. And most employees do fit that description. There are some, however, who feel that they are entitled to an occasional box of pens or can run off unlimited copies from the company machine. These sorts of unintentional perks may go unnoticed by management, but they do add up. And the reality is that few companies recognize the deep bite that employee theft—big or small—can take out of a company’s profit margin. That is, until a major incident makes headlines or cuts into the company’s bottom line. Take a nationally known beverage retailer, for example. This Pacific Northwest business found success with premium coffee and expanded rapidly—so rapidly that it perhaps outgrew its internal controls. Managers no doubt kept an eye on employees to make sure they did not pass out free beverages to their friends. But despite internal controls, in 2001 an employee created a fictitious consulting firm, submitted invoices to the beverage retailer, and arranged for the retailer to send payments to a special post office box. In less than a year, this employee embezzled $3.7 million, using the money to buy a collection of automobiles, motorcycles, a yacht, real estate, three grand pianos, and a variety of other luxury goods. That same year, a leading boat manufacturer filed suit against its former CFO, accusing him of embezzling $14 million in company funds over 16 years to finance his own stock purchases, to run three businesses, and to pay off personal credit card expenses. In 2005, a national office supply retailer began the year by firing four employees who were believed to have fabricated documentation for $3.3 million in invoices to the company. This fraud was uncovered only when a vendor complained that kickbacks were being demanded and that bills were being falsified. Fast-forward to 2009 when a mind-boggling case of e mbezzlement hit a family-owned business in Milwaukee. A well-respected senior employee was indicated for embezzling $31.5 million over a five-year period. The firm’s credit card company, American Express, was the first to identify the unauthorized transactions b ecause it noticed that the employee was withdrawing large sums of company funds to pay off her personal credit card account. Ms. Pressman felt that this created a conflict of interest, she confronted her supervisor about it. Her supervisor became angry, gave her negative performance evaluations over the next year, and she was subsequently terminated for poor performance. During the previous three years, Ms. Pressman’s evaluations had consistently indicated that her performance exceeded the company’s expectations. Mr. Mansfield Mr. Mansfield was a technician in the machine shop of Millfield Corporation. During his employment, he met at lunchtime, during breaks, and after work with employees, attempting to persuade them to start and support a union. After six months of meetings, Mr. Mansfield was informed by his supervisor that he was fired. He was told that he had violated union organization procedures and was using the company premises without permission to organize a union. Therefore, because he had violated the rules about union organizing, he was terminated. Are these isolated incidents? Not according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE). In its “2010 Global Fraud Study,” the ACFE investigated fraud cases in the United States and in over 100 other countries and reported that organizations lose 5 percent of their annual revenues (or, approximately $2.9 trillion) to fraud. The ACFE study notes that fraud can happen at any level of a company, from the mailroom employee to the account executive to the senior executive. While fraud is more prevalent at lower levels, the damage is usually more substantial when high-level executives are involved. The ACFE found that the median loss when owners/executives are involved ($723,000) was more than six times the median loss caused by managers ($200,000) and more than nine times that involving lower-level employees ($80,000). Despite the examples cited above, losses are not limited to major corporations. Small businesses are often the hardest hit by employee fraud. Almost half of the fraud cases s tudied by the ACFE involved small businesses, with the median loss pegged at almost $100,000, a difficult amount for any company to lose, let alone a small business with limited resources. An effective control is to have a separation of duties whenever employees handle money. For instance, if one employee reviews invoices and authorizes payment, then a second employee should write and send the check, and yet another employee should reconcile the bank statements. In addition to a separation of duties, redundancy is also a powerful control. This means having more than one person look at the same transaction. For example, checks should be cosigned rather than authorized by only one person, and multiple employees should have responsibility for overseeing specific bank accounts preventing one employee from “lapping” or moving funds from account to account ahead of any audit so that no irregularities are detected. Centralized processes also allow tighter control. When procurement is centralized, employees in satellite offices are not able to buy more than needed and then resell or return items for cash. When inventory is centralized, employees know that the company’s assets are tracked and monitored. Internal controls should also be used to detect fictitious vendors. In addition, processes should be in place to verify that vendors exist, that they are performing their duties for the company, and that payment is in line with the services provided. While internal controls are vital, they are not the only way to detect and to discourage employee fraud. In fact, today more fraud is found by accident than through the strength of internal controls. However, neither tops the list of how fraud is detected. The ACFE found that almost 40 percent of fraud is discovered through tips, the majority of which come from employees. Customers, vendors, and anonymous callers are also good sources. Another mechanism for controlling employee fraud is to institute careful hiring practices, although this approach is less effective than strong internal controls or a forum for tips. Unicru, a company that specializes in helping other companies recruit and hire employees, has found that 70 percent of “internal shrinkage,” or theft by employees, is carried out by people who are on the job for less than 30 days. Eliminating job candidates who have a track record of holding prior jobs for fewer than 90 days is one way to limit exposure to shrinkage. Checking job applicants for criminal backgrounds makes good business sense. However the ACFE found that only 15 percent of the fraud-committing employees had a previous conviction. In addition, employment-screening processes may vary from country to country, which can be challenging for large, multinational firms. Weeding out bad apples is important, but not nearly as important as setting up internal systems to discourage fraud before it begins.
  3. Spanish El Mas
  4. Knight Company Reports The Following Costs And Expenses In May