journal article
Download Only Collection
Home
Bristol, Alycia A; Elmore, Catherine E; Weiss, Marianne E; Barry, Lisa A.; Iacob, Eli; Johnson, Erin P; Wallace, Andrea S
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015120pmid: 36100445
IntroductionIntrahospital transitions (IHTs) represent movements of patients during hospitalisation. While transitions are often clinically necessary, such as a transfer from the emergency department to an intensive care unit, transitions may disrupt care coordination, such as discharge planning. Family carers often serve as liaisons between the patient and healthcare professionals. However, carers frequently experience exclusion from care planning during IHTs, potentially decreasing their awareness of patients’ clinical status, postdischarge needs and carer preparation. The purpose of this study was to explore family carers’ perceptions about IHTs, patient and carer ratings of patient discharge readiness and carer self-perception of preparation to engage in at home care.MethodsSequential, explanatory mixed-methods study involving retrospective analysis of hospital inpatients from a parent study (1R01HS026248; PI Wallace) for whom patient and family carer Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale (RHDS) score frequency of IHTs and patient and caregiver characteristics were available. Maximum variation sampling was used to recruit a subsample of carers with diverse backgrounds and experiences for the participation in semistructured interviews to understand their views of how IHTs influenced preparation for discharge.ResultsOf discharged patients from July 2020 to April 2021, a total of 268 had completed the RHDS and 23 completed the semistructured interviews. Most patients experienced 0–2 IHTs and reported high levels of discharge readiness. During quantitative analysis, no association was found between IHTs and patients’ RHDS scores. However, carers’ perceptions of patient discharge readiness were negatively associated with increased IHTs. Moreover, non-spouse carers reported lower RHDS scores than spousal carers. During interviews, carers shared barriers experienced during IHTs and discussed the importance of inclusion during discharge care planning.ConclusionsIHTs often represent disruptive events that may influence carers’ understanding of patient readiness for discharge to home and, thus, their own preparation for discharge. Further consideration is needed regarding how to support carers during IHT to facilitate high-quality discharge planning.
Schnipper, Jeffrey L; Reyes Nieva, Harry; Yoon, Catherine; Mallouk, Meghan; Mixon, Amanda S; Rennke, Stephanie; Chu, Eugene S; Mueller, Stephanie K; Smith, G Randy; Williams, Mark V; Wetterneck, Tosha B; Stein, Jason; Dalal, Anuj K; Labonville, Stephanie; Sridharan, Anirudh;
Goldman, Joanne; Rotteau, Leahora; Flintoft, Virginia; Jeffs, Lianne; Baker, G Ross
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015017pmid: 36598000
BackgroundThe Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework (MMSF) aims to move beyond a narrow focus on measurement and past harmful events as the major focus for safety in healthcare organisations. There is limited evidence of MMSF implementation and impact.ObjectiveWe aimed to examine participants’ perspectives and experiences to increase understanding of the adaptive work of implementing the MMSF through a learning collaborative programme in diverse healthcare contexts across Canada.MethodsThe Collaborative consisted of 11 teams from seven provinces. We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 36 participants, observations of 5 sites and learning sessions, and collection of documents.ResultsCollaborative sessions and coaching allowed participants to explore reliability, sensitivity to operations, anticipation and preparedness, and integration and learning, in addition to past harm, and move beyond a project and measurement oriented safety approach. Participants noted the importance of time dedicated to engaging stakeholders in talk about MMSF concepts and their significance to their settings, prior to moving to implementing the Framework into practice. While participants generally started with a small number of ways of integrating the MMSF into practice such as rounds or huddles, many teams continued to experiment with incorporating the MMSF into a range of practices. Participants reported changes in thinking about safety, discussions and behaviours, which were perceived to impact healthcare processes. However, participants also reported challenges to sharing the Framework broadly and moving beyond its surface implementation, and difficulties with its sustained and widespread use given misalignments with existing quality and safety processes.ConclusionThe MMSF requires a dramatic departure from traditional safety strategies that focus on discrete problems and emphasise measurement. MMSF implementation requires extensive discussion, coaching and experimentation. Future implementation should consider engaging local leaders and coaches and an organisation or system approach to enable broader reach and systemic change.
Farrow, Luke; Gardner, William T; Tang, Chee Chee; Low, Rachel; Forget, Patrice; Ashcroft, George Patrick
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013450pmid: 34521769
BackgroundCOVID-19 has had a detrimental impact on access to hip and knee arthroplasty surgery. We set out to examine whether this had a subsequent impact on preoperative opioid prescribing rates for those awaiting surgery.MethodsData regarding patient demographics and opioid utilisation were collected from the electronic health records of included patients at a large university teaching hospital. Patients on the outpatient waiting list for primary hip and knee arthroplasty as of September 2020 (COVID-19 group) were compared with historical controls (Controls) who had previously undergone surgery. A sample size calculation indicated 452 patients were required to detect a 15% difference in opioid prescription rates between groups.ResultsA total of 548 patients (58.2% female) were included, 260 in the COVID-19 group and 288 in the Controls. Baseline demographics were similar between the groups. For those with data available, the proportion of patients on any opioid at follow-up in the COVID-19 group was significantly higher: 55.0% (143/260) compared with 41.2% (112/272) in the Controls (p=0.002). This remained significant when adjusted for confounding (age, gender, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, procedure and wait time). The proportion of patients on a strong opioid was similar (4.2% (11/260) vs 4.8% (13/272)) for COVID-19 and Controls, respectively. The median waiting time from referral to follow-up was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group compared with the Controls (455 days vs 365 days; p<0.0001).ConclusionThe work provides evidence of potential for an emerging opioid problem associated with the influence of COVID-19 on elective arthroplasty services. Viable alternatives to opioid analgesia for those with end-stage arthritis should be explored, and prolonged waiting times for surgery ought to be avoided in the recovery from COVID-19 to prevent more widespread opioid use.
Bodley, Thomas; Levi, Olga; Chan, Maverick; Friedrich, Jan O; Hicks, Lisa K
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015358pmid: 36657786
BackgroundCritically ill patients receive frequent routine and recurring blood tests, some of which are unnecessary.AimTo reduce unnecessary routine phlebotomy in a 30-bed tertiary medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in Toronto, Ontario.MethodsThis prospective quality improvement study included a 7-month preintervention baseline, 5-month intervention and 11-month postintervention period. Change strategies included education, ICU rounds checklists, electronic order set modifications, an electronic test add-on tool and audit and feedback. The primary outcome was mean volume of blood collected per patient-day. Secondary outcomes included the number blood tubes used and red cell transfusions. Balancing measures included the timing and types of blood tests, ICU length of stay and mortality. Outcomes were evaluated using process control charts and segmented regression.ResultsPatient demographics did not differ between time periods; total number of patients: 2096, median age: 61 years, 60% male. Mean phlebotomy volume±SD decreased from 41.1±4.0 to 34.1±4.7 mL/patient-day. Special cause variation was met at 13 weeks. Segmental regression demonstrated an immediate postintervention decrease of 6.6 mL/patient-day (95% CI 1.8 to 11.4 p=0.009), which was sustained. Blood tube consumption decreased by 1.4 tubes/patient-day (95% CI 0.4 to 2.4, p=0.005) amounting to 13 276 tubes (95% CI 4602 to 22 127 tubes) saved over 11 months. Red blood cell transfusions decreased from 10.5±5.2 to 8.3±4.4 transfusions/100 patient-days (incident rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.88, p=0.01). There was no impact on length of stay (2 days, IQR 1–5) and mortality (18.1%±2.0%).ConclusionIterative improvement interventions targeting clinician test ordering behaviour can reduce ICU phlebotomy and may impact red cell transfusions. Frequent stakeholder consultation, incorporating stewardship into daily workflow, and audit and feedback are effective strategies.
Showing 1 to 9 of 9 Articles
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-014806pmid: 36948542
BackgroundThe second Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study demonstrated a marked reduction in medication discrepancies per patient. The aim of the current analysis was to determine the association of patient exposure to each system-level intervention and receipt of each patient-level intervention on these results.MethodsThis study was conducted at 17 North American Hospitals, the study period was 18 months per site, and sites typically adopted interventions after 2–5 months of preintervention data collection. We conducted an on-treatment analysis (ie, an evaluation of outcomes based on patient exposure) of system-level interventions, both at the category level and at the individual component level, based on monthly surveys of implementation site leads at each site (response rate 65%). We then conducted a similar analysis of patient-level interventions, as determined by study pharmacist review of documented activities in the medical record. We analysed the association of each intervention on the adjusted number of medication discrepancies per patient in admission and discharge orders, based on a random sample of up to 22 patients per month per site, using mixed-effects Poisson regression with hospital site as a random effect. We then used a generalised linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) decision tree to determine which patient-level interventions explained the most variance in discrepancy rates.ResultsAmong 4947 patients, patient exposure to seven of the eight system-level component categories was associated with modest but significant reductions in discrepancy rates (adjusted rate ratios (ARR) 0.75–0.97), as were 15 of the 17 individual system-level intervention components, including hiring, reallocating and training personnel to take a best possible medication history (BPMH) and training personnel to perform discharge medication reconciliation and patient counselling. Receipt of five of seven patient-level interventions was independently associated with large reductions in discrepancy rates, including receipt of a BPMH in the emergency department (ED) by a trained clinician (ARR 0.40, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.43), admission medication reconciliation by a trained clinician (ARR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64) and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician (ARR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73). In GLMM decision tree analyses, patients who received both a BPMH in the ED and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician experienced the lowest discrepancy rates (0.08 per medication per patient).Conclusion and relevancePatient-level interventions most associated with reductions in discrepancies were receipt of a BPMH of admitted patients in the ED and admission and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician. System-level interventions were associated with modest reduction in discrepancies for the average patient but are likely important to support patient-level interventions and may reach more patients. These findings can be used to help hospitals and health systems prioritise interventions to improve medication safety during care transitions.