Methodological progress note: The case for mixed methods in quality improvement and research projects

A survey and analysis of peri-operative quality indicators promoted by National Societies of Anaesthesiologists in Europe: The EQUIP project

BACKGROUND

To capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologists Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.

SETTING

The 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Representatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

QIs reported by NAS.

RESULTS

Only 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Few NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

No registration.

Adaptation of the brainwriting premortem technique to inform the co-creation of COVID-19 testing strategies in underserved communities in South San Diego

INTRODUCTION

Meaningful engagement of partners in co-creating and refining health-related programs can increase the initial uptake, sustained implementation, broad reach, and effectiveness of these programs. This is especially important for underserved communities where resources are limited and need to be prioritized. Brainwriting premortem is a novel qualitative approach to partner engagement that combines the strengths of individual idea generation with the concept of premortem exercise that addresses failure points prior to the implementation of new programs.

METHODS

An adapted form of brainwriting premortem was used to inform iterative refinements to a COVID-19 testing program at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in San Diego. Patients and providers from the FQHC participated in interviews at two time points (early- and mid-implementation of the program). Interview data were transcribed, translated, and analyzed using a rapid qualitative approach. Key themes and sub-themes were identified and used to inform refinements to the program.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients (7 Spanish- and 4 English-speaking) and 8 providers participated in the brainwriting premortem interviews. Key themes related to possible reasons for COVID-19 testing program failure: advertising/sharing information; access to testing; handling of test results; staff and patient safety; patient beliefs and views regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and COVID-19 testing options offered. Proposed solutions were offered for the key failures except for patient beliefs and views regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Additional solutions offered were related to education, physical operations, and recruitment strategies. Real-time changes to the program flow and components were made in response to 7 suggestions from patients and 11 from providers. Changes related to the process of returning results were the most common, and included sending results via email with distinct workflows based on the test result.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the adapted brainwriting premortem technique allowed us to incorporate the perspective of key partners in the delivery and iterative refinement of the COVID-19 testing program. This was an effective tool in the context of an FQHC and can be a promising and approach to incorporate iterative input from patients and providers to ensure successful program implementation. Future studies, particularly those requiring rapid response to public health emergencies, should consider the use of this technique.

Improving Communication in Intensive Care Unit to Ward Transitions: Protocol for Multisite National Implementation of the ICU-PAUSE Handoff Tool

BACKGROUND

The intensive care unit (ICU)-ward transfer poses a particularly high-risk period for patients. The period after transfer has been associated with adverse events and additional work for care teams related to miscommunication or omission of information. Standardized handoff processes have been found to reduce communication errors and adverse patient events in other clinical environments but are understudied at the ICU-ward interface. We previously developed an electronic ICU-ward transfer tool, ICU-PAUSE, which embeds the key elements and diagnostic reasoning to facilitate a safe transfer of care at ICU discharge.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation process of the ICU-PAUSE handoff tool across 10 academic medical centers, including the rate of adoption and acceptability, as perceived by clinical care teams.

METHODS

ICU-PAUSE will be implemented in the medical ICU across 10 academic hospitals, with each site customizing the tool to their institution's needs. Our mixed methods study will include a combination of a chart review, quantitative surveys, and qualitative interviews. After a 90-day implementation period, we will conduct a retrospective chart review to evaluate the rate of uptake of ICU-PAUSE. We will also conduct postimplementation surveys of providers to assess perceptions of the tool and its impact on the frequency of communication errors and adverse events during ICU-ward transfers. Lastly, we will conduct semistructured interviews of faculty stakeholders with subsequent thematic analysis with the goal of identifying benefits and barriers in implementing and using ICU-PAUSE.

RESULTS

ICU-PAUSE was piloted in the medical ICU at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, the teaching hospital of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, in 2019. As of July 2022, implementation of ICU-PAUSE is ongoing at 6 of 10 participating sites. Our results will be published in 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

Our process of ICU-PAUSE implementation embeds each step of template design, uptake, and customization in the needs of users and key stakeholders. Here, we introduce our approach to evaluate its acceptability, usability, and impact on communication errors according to the tenets of sociotechnical theory. We anticipate that ICU-PAUSE will offer an effective handoff tool for the ICU-ward transition that can be generalized to other institutions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/40918.