IBCD: Development and testing of a checklist to improve quality of care for hospitalized general medical patients
Several studies have demonstrated the usefulness of medical checklists to improve quality of care in surgery and the ICU. The feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability of a checklist was explored.
Literature on checklists and adherence to quality indicators in general medicine was reviewed to develop evidence-based measures for the IBCD checklist: (I) pneumococcal immunization, (B) pressure ulcers (bedsores), (C) catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), and (D) deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were considered conditions highly relevant to the quality of care in general medicine inpatients. The checklist was used by attending physicians during rounds to remind residents to perform four actions related to these measures. Charts were audited to document actions prompted by the checklist.
The IBCD checklist was associated with significantly increased documentation of and adherence to care processes associated with these four quality indicators. Seventy percent (46/66) of general medicine teams during the intervention period of July 2010-March 2011 voluntarily used the IBCD checklist for 1,168 (54%) of 2,161 patients. During the intervention period, average adherence for all four checklist items increased from 68% on admission to 82% after checklist use (p < .001). Average adherence after checklist use was also higher when compared to a historical control group from one year before implementation (82% versus 50%, p < .0001). In the six weeks after the checklist was transitioned to the electronic medical record, IBCD was noted in documentation of 133 (59%) of 226 patients admitted to general medicine.
A checklist is a useful and sustainable tool to improve adherence to, and documentation of, care processes specific to quality indicators in general medicine.
Available from: Gerd Flodgren
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a major threat to patient safety, and are associated with mortality rates varying from 5% to 35%. Important risk factors associated with HAIs are the use of invasive medical devices (e.g. central lines, urinary catheters and mechanical ventilators), and poor staff adherence to infection prevention practices during insertion and care for the devices when in place. There are specific risk profiles for each device, but in general, the breakdown of aseptic technique during insertion and care for the device, as well as the duration of device use, are important factors for the development of these serious and costly infections.
To assess the effectiveness of different interventions, alone or in combination, which target healthcare professionals or healthcare organisations to improve professional adherence to infection control guidelines on device-related infection rates and measures of adherence.
We searched the following electronic databases for primary studies up to June 2012: the Cochrane Effective Paractice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. We searched reference lists and contacted authors of included studies. We also searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies that complied with the Cochrane EPOC Group methodological criteria, and that evaluated interventions to improve professional adherence to guidelines for the prevention of device-related infections.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane EPOC 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted authors of original papers to obtain missing information.
We included 13 studies: one cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) and 12 ITS studies, involving 40 hospitals, 51 intensive care units (ICUs), 27 wards, and more than 3504 patients and 1406 healthcare professionals. Six of the included studies targeted adherence to guidelines to prevent central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSIs); another six studies targeted adherence to guidelines to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and one study focused on interventions to improve urinary catheter practices. We judged all included studies to be at moderate or high risk of bias.The largest median effect on rates of VAP was found at nine months follow-up with a decrease of 7.36 (-10.82 to 3.14) cases per 1000 ventilator days (five studies and 15 sites). The one included cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) observed, improved urinary catheter practices five weeks after the intervention (absolute difference 12.2 percentage points), however, the statistical significance of this is unknown given a unit of analysis error. It is worth noting that N = 6 interventions that did result in significantly decreased infection rates involved more than one active intervention, which in some cases, was repeatedly administered over time, and further, that one intervention involving specialised oral care personnel showed the largest step change (-22.9 cases per 1000 ventilator days (standard error (SE) 4.0), and also the largest slope change (-6.45 cases per 1000 ventilator days (SE 1.42, P = 0.002)) among the included studies. We attempted to combine the results for studies targeting the same indwelling medical device (central line catheters or mechanical ventilators) and reporting the same outcomes (CLABSI and VAP rate) in two separate meta-analyses, but due to very high statistical heterogeneity among included studies (I(2) up to 97%), we did not retain these analyses. Six of the included studies reported post-intervention adherence scores ranging from 14% to 98%. The effect on rates of infection were mixed and the effect sizes were small, with the largest median effect for the change in level (interquartile range (IQR)) for the six CLABSI studies being observed at three months follow-up was a decrease of 0.6 (-2.74 to 0.28) cases per 1000 central line days (six studies and 36 sites). This change was not sustained over longer follow-up times.
The low to very low quality of the evidence of studies included in this review provides insufficient evidence to determine with certainty which interventions are most effective in changing professional behaviour and in what contexts. However, interventions that may be worth further study are educational interventions involving more than one active element and that are repeatedly administered over time, and interventions employing specialised personnel, who are focused on an aspect of care that is supported by evidence e.g. dentists/dental auxiliaries performing oral care for VAP prevention.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 04/2013; 3(3):CD006559. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006559.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Available from: Shannon Martin
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Changes in the clinical learning environment under resident duty hours restrictions have introduced a number of challenges on today's wards. Additionally, the current group of medical trainees is largely represented by the Millennial Generation, a generation characterized by an affinity for technology, interaction, and group-based learning. Special attention must be paid to take into account the learning needs of a generation that has only ever known life with duty hours. A mnemonic for strategies to augment teaching rounds for hospitalists was created using an approach that considers time limitations due to duty hours as well as the preferences of Millennial learners. These strategies to enhance learning during teaching rounds are Flipping the Wards, Using Documentation to Teach, Technology-Enabled Teaching, Using Guerilla Teaching Tactics, Rainy Day Teaching, and Embedding Teaching Moments into Rounds (FUTURE). Hospitalists serving as teaching attendings should consider these possible strategies as ways to enhance teaching in the post-duty hours era. These techniques appeal to the preferences of today's learners in an environment often limited by time constraints. Hospitalists are well positioned to champion innovative approaches to teaching in a dynamic and evolving clinical learning environment. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.
Journal of Hospital Medicine 07/2013; 8(7). DOI:10.1002/jhm.2057 · 2.30 Impact Factor
Available from: Cheryl Sadowski
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To provide a narrative review of the impact of provider-based, organizational strategies in acute care settings to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates among patients over 65, and 2-64 years with high risk medical conditions.
A search was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL and Web of Science databases for hospital-based, inpatient studies which evaluated strategies to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates. Studies published in English from 1983 to 2013 were included. Data abstracted was analyzed descriptively.
A total of 35 studies were included; 15 evaluated physician reminders (e.g. chart or paper reminders, pre-printed orders (PPOs), computerized reminders, checklists) and 21 standing orders programs (SOPs). The most common study design was pre/post, and only 7 studies had a control group. Overall, 32 studies showed improvements in the rate of pneumococcal vaccination following intervention (19 statistically significant), with reminders showing 29-74% immunization rate, PPCO 5-42%, and SOPs 3.4-78%.
Hospital-based interventions improve pneumococcal vaccination in older adults and younger individuals at risk. Although this review found that more success was observed with SOPs the impact on immunization rates in eligible patients varied significantly. Thus, high quality, randomized-controlled studies are required to determine the effect of each type of institutional immunization strategy.
Preventive Medicine 07/2014; 67. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.07.015 · 3.09 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.