Trace a patient route and find the delay
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Use the supplied times to map a patient route, find a likely bottleneck, and propose one change to test.
1. Open your materials
2. Start the work
Open the patient-flow practice handout. Read the route and F0 rules. These are fictional records, not real patients or the official PLTW case.
Show all 4 required steps
- Open the patient-flow practice handout. Read the route and F0 rules. These are fictional records, not real patients or the official PLTW case.
- Read records F1 to F4 and the worked F1 calculation. Find the waits before the nurse and clinician for F2, F3, and F4. Label each answer in minutes.
- Draw the four F0 steps with arrows, staff roles, and both waiting points. Add all four records' waiting times. Explain the likely bottleneck using two records and one F0 rule. Propose one change to test, a possible drawback, and a before-and-after measure.
- Check the handout's turn-in section. Save your diagram and explanation together as one PDF. Submit it in Wk4 Lab notebook: Patient flow workflow using the Schoology link below. Keep one question the model cannot answer.
Lost your place? Recheck the F1 example. Find the end of the nurse review and the start of the clinician review. Subtract to find the wait, then try F2.
Check your work before submitting
- My diagram follows F0 and labels the steps, roles, and waiting points.
- My waits use the correct start and end times, record IDs, and minutes.
- I support a likely bottleneck with two records and one F0 rule.
- I propose a change to test, name a drawback and a measure, and state a limit.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- Hand in
- Patient-flow diagram and evidence-based explanation
How to submit and name your file
Submit one PDF with your labeled diagram, waiting times, and explanation in Wk4 Lab notebook: Patient flow workflow. Use the exact Schoology assignment linked here and follow its posted due date. Check the uploaded preview.
In Schoology, open your course and the assignment for this lesson. Attach your file, select Submit, and check that it appears in the submission.
PDF upload helpYou get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
Find this lesson's Schoology assignments
These are existing assignments for your section. Follow the directions in the assignment you are working on; this list does not add new work. Check Schoology for each deadline.
Link will not open? Open Schoology, choose your course and section, and find the title shown above.
How this lesson connects
Map the route → measure the waits → explain the delay → test a design idea. Keep facts separate from proposals.
Thinking practice for this week▸
Reasoning: connecting evidence to the claim
What separates sound reasoning from bad reasoning, and how do you check your own?
Reasoning is the part where you explain why your evidence supports your claim. It is the bridge. Without it, a claim and some data are just sitting next to each other; reasoning shows how the data leads to the conclusion, often using a scientific principle.
Good reasoning is logical (each step follows from the last), it actually uses your evidence (not just restates the claim), and it considers alternatives (could the data mean something else?). Bad reasoning leans on logical fallacies: jumping to conclusions, confusing correlation with causation, or attacking the person instead of the idea.
Check your own reasoning by trying to break it: state the opposite and see if your evidence rules it out. Ask “what would have to be true for me to be wrong?” If you cannot answer, your reasoning is not finished yet.
- • Logical: each step follows from the one before it.
- • Grounded: it uses your evidence, and names the principle that links it to the claim.
- • Fair: it considers other explanations and says why yours is better.
- • Self-checked: you tried to prove yourself wrong and could not.
- • Correlation is not causation: two things moving together does not mean one caused the other.
- • Hasty generalization: one case does not prove a rule.
- • Ad hominem: attacking the person, not their evidence.
Write the reasoning that links your evidence to your claim from earlier this week. Then write the strongest objection to it, and answer that objection.
Need help? Warm-up, timing, and directions▸
💡 Big idea: Measure the wait before choosing the fix.
- 0-10 minRead F0 and define , queue, and bottleneck
- 10-25 minCalculate the waits using F1 as a model
- 25-45 minDraw and label the route and waits
- 45-65 minExplain the likely bottleneck and propose a test
- 65-80 minCheck evidence and limits, then submit one PDF
- • Today I want you to explain a delay using records, not a guess about hospitals.
- • Use F0 to check what this small model includes. Trained staff already chose the route; you are not choosing treatment or urgency.
- • Keep one unanswered question for the next design step. Good design starts with knowing what evidence is missing.
- • A shows the order of steps.
- • A queue is a line waiting for a step.
- • A bottleneck limits how quickly work moves through the route.
- • A proposed change needs a test; it is not a proven improvement.
PLTW connection and today's work
John Hay original practice supporting BI Problem 1.1.3, Emergency! Use the fictional F0 to F4 handout for today's process-design work. The official problem and its patient records remain in Schoology.
Today's stopping point: Stop after the diagram and short explanation. Do not diagnose patients, choose treatment, or mark the official PLTW problem complete.
Today uses John Hay teacher-created practice. It builds skills for the course, but does not count as completing an official myPLTW activity.
Course connection
- Activity 1.1.3 Emergency!
Use the turn-in directions at the top of this page. Do not create a second submission unless your teacher asks for one.
Show another explanation or a smaller first step
Need help? Choose a starting point
Lesson resources: reading, slides, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
A stakeholder map connects people, needs and possible conflicts before a design choice.
Measure the wait before choosing the fix.
Driving question: What can four records tell us about a delay, and what is still unknown?
What you already know: You can subtract two clock times. The handout defines , queue, and bottleneck, and F1 shows the subtraction worked.
New idea: Measure the wait before choosing the fix.
Visual or model: F1. This text model states the wait rule and the shape of your explanation. It is not record F1; F1 is the first patient-time record in the handout, worked for you. What to notice: Measure the wait before choosing the fix.
- Read F0: the four steps, who does each review, how long each takes, when each person is free, and the one-person-at-a-time rule.
- For each record, find the wait before the nurse and before the clinician: next start minus prior end, in minutes.
- Draw the route, mark both waiting points, and put each record's waits beside them with its ID.
- Name the likely bottleneck from two records and one F0 rule, propose one change to test with a drawback and a measure, and state the model's limit.
Real biomedical example: A measured wait tells a design team where to look; the same team needs a test, a drawback, and a measure before calling a change an improvement. Source: Original patient-flow practice: F0 rules, records F1 to F4, time and writing help.
What the evidence supports: F0 and records F1 to F4 support the one product: the route diagram, all four records' waits, and the explanation with a proposed test and its limit.
What it cannot prove: Four fictional records cannot prove a change is safe, show a whole hospital day, or establish what a real hospital should buy.
- • : A sequence of steps.
- • Queue: A line waiting for a step.
- • Bottleneck: A step that limits how quickly work moves through the route.
- • Wait time: Time between the end of the prior step and the start of the next one. Time receiving care is not waiting time.
- • Task time: How long a step takes once it starts: 4 minutes for the nurse review, 10 for the clinician review in F0.
- • Clue: A growing queue. Compare arrival times, waiting times, staff, and task lengths before naming the likely bottleneck.
Use it now: Use F1. The nurse finishes at 9:06 and the clinician starts at 9:10. What is the wait, and why is the arrival time not used?
Go further, optional: The handout's time and writing help are optional; F0 and F1 to F4 contain every required fact.
Four fictional patients use a simplified route: arrive; one nurse reviews one person at a time for 4 minutes (free at 9:02); one clinician sees one person at a time for 10 minutes (free at 9:10); leaving takes 10 minutes with no queue.
Limit: Staff work without breaks, each person starts a step as soon as both are ready, and nobody skips ahead. The model leaves out tests, admissions, urgent cases and many other hospital processes; trained staff chose the route.
Four fictional time records on the same morning, with arrival, nurse start and end, clinician start and end, and leave times. F1 is worked: wait before the nurse 9:02 minus 9:00 = 2 minutes; wait before the clinician 9:10 minus 9:06 = 4 minutes.
Limit: Original AI-assisted practice, not official PLTW records or real hospital data. Use the end of the prior step to calculate a wait.
Four records can show a likely bottleneck in this model. They cannot prove a change is safe, show a whole hospital day, or establish what a real hospital should buy.
Limit: Four fictional records can show a likely bottleneck in this model. They cannot prove a change is safe or show what happens in a real hospital all day.
BI-FLOW-F · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: workflow designer for a simplified emergency-department route
Decision: A partner wants to name the treatment room as the bottleneck because hospital patients always wait longest there. Decide what your explanation may claim. Use F0, F1 to F4 and the E3 limit.
- • Compare F1 to F4 waits with F0 staff and task times, then propose one change to test in this model.
- • Name the treatment room as the bottleneck because hospital patients always wait longest for a room.
- • Check a longer set of records before applying the result beyond these four fictional patients.
Response: One PDF: the F0 route diagram, all four records' waits, and one explanation with the likely bottleneck, a proposed test, a drawback, a measure and a limit, submitted in Wk4 Lab notebook: Patient flow (8544610066). The choice discussion is preparation, not another submission.
Claim ceiling: Four fictional records can show a likely bottleneck in this model. They cannot prove a change is safe or show what happens in a real hospital all day.
- • The diagram shows all four F0 steps in order with arrows, staff roles and both waiting points.
- • Every record's two waits carry its ID and minutes, calculated from the end of the prior step.
- • The bottleneck claim cites two records and one F0 rule; the proposed test names a drawback and a before-and-after measure.
- • Only the fictional F0 to F4 data; no real patients and no official PLTW records.
- • No treatment or urgency decision; trained staff already chose the route.
- • The claim stays inside the model: four records cannot prove a change is safe.
- • Measured waits over impressions of hospitals
- • A testable change over a confident fix
- • A stated limit over a broad claim
Test evidence: A before-and-after measure of the wait at the step you change, taken in the same model.
- Read F0 and the worked F1 record; check when each staff member is free.
- Calculate every wait for F2 to F4 and mark where the waits grow.
- Draw the route with roles and both waiting points, then place the waits beside them.
- Name the bottleneck from two records and one rule, then propose the test with its drawback and measure.
- State the limit and keep one question the model cannot answer.
- Route diagram with roles and waiting points
- Wait table for F1 to F4 with IDs and minutes
- Bottleneck claim citing two records and one F0 rule
- Proposed test with its drawback and before-and-after measure
- The limit and one question the model cannot answer
Students often think the longest care step is always the bottleneck. The trap: the number of staff and the arrival rate also matter. Compare the recorded waits with the F0 rules
Model R is fictional. Route: job arrives → one printer prints → job is collected. The printer is ready at 10:00, takes 6 minutes per job, and runs without breaks. Collection is immediate. Jobs are served in arrival order. R1 arrives at 10:00 and prints from 10:00 to 10:06. R2 arrives at 10:02 and prints from 10:06 to 10:12. R3 arrives at 10:04 and prints from 10:12 to 10:18.
Waits before the printer: R1 = 0 minutes, R2 = 4 minutes, R3 = 8 minutes. I label these at the queue before printing. The printer is the likely bottleneck here: jobs arrive every 2 minutes but one printer needs 6 minutes per job. R2 and R3 show a growing wait.
I would test a second printer using the same arrivals and job lengths. A drawback is the extra cost and space. I would compare average wait before and after the change, keeping print quality the same. Three jobs cannot show demand all day, and this model does not include equipment failures.
| Record | Arrival | Print start | Print end | Wait (minutes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | 10:00 | 10:00 | 10:06 | 0 |
| R2 | 10:02 | 10:06 | 10:12 | 4 |
| R3 | 10:04 | 10:12 | 10:18 | 8 |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A separate, original workflow example. Use its structure for your F0 to F4 diagram and explanation; it contains no official PLTW case answers.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Turn in your own F0 to F4 diagram and explanation together, not this print-shop model. The patient-flow handout links to Wk4 Lab notebook: Patient flow workflow in Schoology.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Practice: try a question, then check your answer▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Four fictional records can show a likely bottleneck in this model. They cannot prove a change is safe or show what happens in a real hospital all day.
A nurse finishes at 9:06 and the clinician starts at 9:10. How long is the wait between these steps?
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Missed class or ready for more?▸
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
Use the same handout, records, and four steps. Paper is fine: scan your diagram and explanation as one readable PDF. If the Schoology submission will not open, keep your work and tell me.
Patient-flow data and step-by-step helpSubmit one PDF with your labeled diagram, waiting times, and explanation in Wk4 Lab notebook: Patient flow workflow. Use the exact Schoology assignment linked here and follow its posted due date. Check the uploaded preview.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
Patient-flow data and step-by-step helpHow I will check this work
- My diagram follows F0 and labels the steps, roles, and waiting points.
- My waits use the correct start and end times, record IDs, and minutes.
- I support a likely bottleneck with two records and one F0 rule.
- I propose a change to test, name a drawback and a measure, and state a limit.
Four fictional records can show a likely bottleneck in this model. They cannot prove a change is safe or show what happens in a real hospital all day. Use the Schoology assignment linked above to submit it.
This week
My Progress dashboard