NeoNotes
Journal Club
Andrew B. Kairalla MD, Editor
Guest Commentator: Jim Handyside
11-001 | Additional Comments |
Previous
Article | Next Article | Search
| List of Articles | Submit
Comments | Index | FSN Home Page | Subscribe
Now
BACKGROUND: Few published data exist with respect to current
implementation of interventions that increase patient safety in intensive care
units (ICUs) Furthermore, even less published data exist that address
implementation of outcome-related methodologies of patient safety
interventions in ICUs.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to increase
implementation rates of known, evidence-based interventions in the Dartmouth
Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) ICU that have been demonstrated to reduce
morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients; (2) to develop a durable
and reproducible intervention model that can be applied not only to various
aspects of ICU medicine but to any healthcare microsystem that is process
oriented; and (3) to design an "ICU-specific" value compass. DESIGN: Using a
before/after study design, the interventions involved: (1) establishing a
systematic approach to integrate the delivery of proven ICU safety measures;
(2) using the design of the various tools to develop a method for team
communication and team building; (3) incorporating prompts into a ICU progress
note for the healthcare team to address three evidence-based measures on a
daily basis; and (4) using a data wall to demonstrate progress and to provide
"real-time" feedback for error correction.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In the before and after study, two groups of
40 consecutive patients admitted to DHMC's Intensive Care Unit were evaluated.
The first group of patients was admitted between April and May of 2003. The
second group of 40 patients was admitted between May and June of 2004. To
ensure process stability, control data were also collected on patients at an
interval time point between these two groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three evidence-based interventions were identified
that reduce the likelihood of adverse events resulting simply from an ICU
stay: (1) prophylaxis against venous thrombo-embolic disease (venous
thromboembolism or deep vein thrombosis); (2) prophylaxis against
ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); and (3) prophylaxis against
stress-ulcers (SU). Two data points were obtained per patient per day
corresponding to the work shift schedule in the ICU. The unit of measure was
patient-shift observation. A limited data set was collected before
implementing the change package to ensure system stability.
RESULTS: Both traditional statistical analysis and statistical process
control (SPC) were used to evaluate the results. For each metric, it was
possible to demonstrate an increase in the measure of the mean, reduced
point-to-point variation as well as a substantial narrowing of the control
limits indicating improved process control. Limitations: By virtue of the
involvement of the researcher in the data collection for the control group,
the potential existed for methodological bias by acting on the information
collected. There was also the lack of a cohesive data structure from which to
collect information (ie, the hospital computer speaks one language, the
ventilator a second and the monitoring systems a third).
CONCLUSIONS: A model for changing the ICU microsystem at DHMC was
created that enabled successful implementation of evidence-based measures by
maximising the natural flow of work and fostering a team-based culture to
improve patient safety. Unique to this method and unlike currently available
methods that define only the delivery of the appropriate intervention as
success, system success was defined in terms of both true positives, namely
delivering care when it is indicated, as well as true negatives, not
delivering care when there is none indicated, to offer a more comprehensive
system review. Additionally, the method of data collection allowed simplified
defect analysis, thereby eliminating a resource-consuming audit of data after
the fact. This approach, therefore, provides a basis for adapting and
redesigning the PDSA cycle so as to specifically apply this type of
"disciplinary" work
-------------------
Comments:
This quality improvement study provides a model for the conduct of similar
improvement work despite being undertaken in a different clinical environment
- the adult ICU. When practices have good evidence, consistent and reliable
implementation is required. In this project an interdisciplinary team applied
sound improvement methods using process measures and control charts to support
real time improvement. This demonstrates an approach that supports improvement
over the course of days rather than months, accelerating learning and
improvement. The report includes illustrations of the tools used: flow
diagrams, data collection tools and control charts and appears to closely
follow the SQuIRE
Guidelines. Jim Handyside
Additional Comments:
To comment on this article, Select Submit Comments.