Informing the standardising of care for prolonged stay patients in the ICU: A scoping review of quality improvement tools

Clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators for the provision of actionable processes of care important for persistent or chronic critical illness

AIM

To explore clinician-perceived barriers to and facilitators for the provision of actionable processes of care important for patients with persistent or chronic critical illness.

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive interview study.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of semi-structured telephone interviews (December 2018 - February 2019) with professionally diverse clinicians working with adults experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness in Canadian intensive care units. We used deductive content analysis informed by the Social-Ecological Model.

RESULTS

We recruited 31 participants from intensive care units across nine Canadian provinces. Reported intrapersonal level barriers to the provision of actionable processes of care included lack of training, negative emotions and challenges prioritizing these patients. Facilitators included establishment of positive relations and trust with patients and family. Interpersonal barriers included communication difficulties, limited access to physicians and conflict. Facilitators included communication support, time spent with the patient/family and conflict management. Institutional barriers comprised inappropriate care processes, inadequate resources and disruptive environmental conditions. Facilitators were regular team rounds, appropriate staffing and employment of a primary care (nurse and/or physician) model. Community-level barriers included inappropriate care location and insufficient transition support. Facilitators were accessed to alternate care sites/teams and to formalized transition support. Public policy-level barriers included inadequacy of formal education programs for the care of these patients; knowledge implementation for patient management was identified as a facilitator.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlighted multilevel barriers and facilitators to the delivery of actionable processes important for quality care for patient/family experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness.

IMPACT

Using the Social-Ecological Model, the results of this study provide intra and interpersonal, institutional, community and policy-level barriers to address and facilitators to harness to improve the care of patients/family experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness.

REPORTING METHOD

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Use of Rounding Checklists to Improve Communication and Collaboration in the Adult Intensive Care Unit: An Integrative Review

BACKGROUND

Intensive care units are complex settings that require effective communication and collaboration among professionals in many disciplines. Rounding checklists are frequently used during interprofessional rounds and have been shown to positively affect patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarize the evidence related to the following practice question: In an adult intensive care unit, does the use of a rounding checklist during interprofessional rounds affect the perceived level of staff collaboration or communication?

METHODS

An integrative review was performed to address the practice question. No parameters were set for publication year or specific study design. Studies were included if they were set in adult intensive care units, involved the use of a structured rounding checklist, and had measured outcomes that included staff collaboration, communication, or both.

RESULTS

Seven studies with various designs were included in the review. Of the 7 studies, 6 showed that use of rounding checklists improved staff collaboration, communication, or both. These results have a variety of practice implications, including the potential for better patient outcomes and staff retention.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the complexity of the critical care setting, optimizing teamwork is essential. The evidence from this review indicates that the use of a relatively simple rounding checklist tool during interprofessional rounds can improve perceived collaboration and communication in adult intensive care units.

Clinician views on actionable processes of care for prolonged stay intensive care patients and families: A descriptive qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore clinician perspectives on key actionable processes of care that may improve outcomes and experience of patients experiencing a prolonged (over 7 days) intensive care unit stay, and their family members.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A descriptive qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom. We conducted online semi-structured interviews using video conferencing software (October 2020-August 2022). We used purposive sampling ensuring participation from a broad range of professions representing the interprofessional team in the United Kingdom. We used Framework Analysis methods to group actionable processes into the six themes of person-centred care. Analyses were informed by our previous scoping review and previous interviews with former patients and family members.

FINDINGS

We interviewed 24 staff participants and identified 36 actionable processes of care under six themes of person-centred care. Processes relating to communication (both establishing an effective communication method for the patient and staff communication with the patient and family), continuity of staff and care plans, and personalising the environment and routines, and allowing flexible family visiting were most frequently articulated. These processes were perceived as having a multifaceted impact on patient and family wellbeing, for example family visiting helping patient and family emotional wellbeing and staff communication with family; and establishing an effective communication method for patients reduced their anxiety, enhanced their involvement in their care and allowed staff to include them in ward rounds more efficiently.

CONCLUSION

We identified 36 actionable processes of care from interviews with intensive care staff, with an emphasis on enhancing patient autonomy through optimising communication and involvement in decision-making, participation of family, and continuity of staff and care plans.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

These 36 actionable processes of care will contribute to future development of quality improvement tools, which will be used to standardise the care of prolonged-stay intensive care patients and their families.

The use of checklists in the intensive care unit: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive volume of research published on checklists in the intensive care unit (ICU), no review has been published on the broader role of checklists within the intensive care unit, their implementation and validation, and the recommended clinical context for their use. Accordingly, a scoping review was necessary to map the current literature and to guide future research on intensive care checklists. This review focuses on what checklists are currently used, how they are used, process of checklist development and implementation, and outcomes associated with checklist use.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted, followed by a grey literature search. The abstracts of the identified studies were screened. Full texts of relevant articles were reviewed, and the references of included studies were subsequently screened for additional relevant articles. Details of the study characteristics, study design, checklist intervention, and outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2046 studies, of which 167 were selected for further analysis. Checklists identified in these studies were categorised into the following types: rounding checklists; delirium screening checklists; transfer and handover checklists; central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention checklists; airway management checklists; and other. Of 72 significant clinical outcomes reported, 65 were positive, five were negative, and two were mixed. Of 122 significant process of care outcomes reported, 114 were positive and eight were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Checklists are commonly used in the intensive care unit and appear in many clinical guidelines. Delirium screening checklists and rounding checklists are well implemented and validated in the literature. Clinical and process of care outcomes associated with checklist use are predominantly positive. Future research on checklists in the intensive care unit should focus on establishing clinical guidelines for checklist types and processes for ongoing modification and improvements using post-intervention data.

Co-designed and consensus based development of a quality improvement checklist of patient and family-centered actionable processes of care for adults with persistent critical illness

PURPOSE

Few quality improvement tools specific to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness exist to aid delivery of high-quality care. Using experience-based co-design methods, we sought consensus from key stakeholders on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a quality improvement checklist.

METHODS

Item generation methods: systematic review, semi-structured interviews (ICU survivors and family) members, touchpoint video creation, and semi-structured interviews (ICU clinicians). Consensus methods: modified online Delphi and a virtual meeting using nominal group technique methods.

RESULTS

We enrolled 138 ICU interprofessional team, patients, and family members. We obtained consensus on a quality improvement checklist comprising 11 core domains: patient and family involvement in decision-making; patient communication; physical comfort and complication prevention; promoting self-care and normalcy; ventilator weaning; physical therapy; swallowing; pharmacotherapy; psychological issues; delirium; and appropriate referrals. An additional 27 actionable processes are contained within 6 core domains that provide more specific direction on the actionable process to be targeted.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a highly collaborative and methodologically rigorous process, we generated a quality improvement checklist of actionable processes to improve patient and family-centred care considered important by key stakeholders. Future research is needed to understand optimal implementation strategies and impact on outcomes and experience.