Measuring against clinical standards

Impact of attributed audit on procedural performance in cardiac electrophysiology catheter laboratory

PURPOSE

Audit has played a key role in monitoring and improving clinical practice. However, audit often fails to drive change as summative institutional data alone may be insufficient to do so. We hypothesised that the practice of attributed audit, wherein each individual's procedural performance is presented will have a greater impact on clinical practice. This hypothesis was tested in an observational study evaluating improvement in fluoroscopy times for AF ablation.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses of fluoroscopy times in AF ablations at the Barts Heart Centre (BHC) from 2012-2017. Fluoroscopy times were compared pre- and post- the introduction of attributed audit in 2012 at St Bartholomew's Hospital (SBH). In order to test the hypothesis, this concept was introduced to a second group of experienced operators from the Heart Hospital (HH) as part of a merger of the two institutions in 2015 and change in fluoroscopy times recorded.

RESULTS

A significant drop in fluoroscopy times (33.3 ± 9.14 to 8.95 ± 2.50, p < 0.0001) from 2012-2014 was noted after the introduction of attributed audit. At the time of merger, a significant difference in fluoroscopy times between operators from the two centres was seen in 2015. Each operator's procedural performance was shared openly at the audit meeting. Subsequent audits showed a steady decrease in fluoroscopy times for each operator with the fluoroscopy time (min, mean±SD) decreasing from 13.29 ± 7.3 in 2015 to 8.84 ± 4.8 (p < 0.0001) in 2017 across the entire group.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic improvement in fluoroscopy times for AF ablation procedures was noted byevaluating individual operators' performance. Attributing data to physicians in attributed audit can promptsignificant improvement and hence should be adopted in clinical practice.

External inspection of compliance with standards for improved healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Inspection systems are used in healthcare to promote quality improvements (i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes). These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of healthcare. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational-, provider- and patient-level outcomes are not clear. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for studies up to 1 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, HMIC, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no language restriction and we included studies regardless of publication status. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. We also searched an online database of systematic reviews (PDQ-evidence.org).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update. One cluster RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals and one ITS involving all acute hospital trusts in England, met the inclusion criteria. A trust is a National Health Service hospital which has opted to withdraw from local authority control and be managed by a trust instead.The cluster RCT reported mixed effects of external inspection on compliance with COHSASA (Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Improved total compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was reported for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 37%) (P < 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). The median intervention effect for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4% (range -1.9% to +11.8%).The ITS study evaluated compliance with policies to address healthcare-acquired infections and reported a mean reduction in MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection rates of 100 cases per quarter (95% CI -221.0 to 21.5, P = 0.096) at three months' follow-up and an increase of 70 cases per quarter (95% CI -250.5 to 391.0; P = 0.632) at 24 months' follow-up. Regression analysis showed similar MRSA rates before and after the external inspection (difference in slope 24.27, 95% CI -10.4 to 58.9; P = 0.147).Neither included study reported data on unanticipated/adverse consequences or economic outcomes. The cluster RCT reported mainly outcomes related to healthcare organisation change, and no patient reported outcomes other than patient satisfaction.The certainty of the included evidence from both studies was very low. It is uncertain whether external inspection accreditation programmes lead to improved compliance with accreditation standards. It is also uncertain if external inspection infection programmes lead to improved compliance with standards, and if this in turn influences healthcare-acquired MRSA infection rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of external inspection systems. If policy makers wish to understand the effectiveness of this type of intervention better, there needs to be further studies across a range of settings and contexts and studies reporting outcomes important to patients.

Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation

OBJECTIVES

The Radiation Protection of Patients Unit of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is concerned about the effectiveness of justification of diagnostic medical exposures. Recent published work and the report of an initial IAEA consultation in the area gave grounds for such concerns. There is a significant level of inappropriate usage, and, in some cases, a poor level of awareness of dose and risk among some key groups involved. This article aims to address this.

METHODS

The IAEA convened a second group of experts in November 2008 to review practical and achievable actions that might lead to more effective justification.

RESULTS

This report summarises the matters that this group considered and the outcome of their deliberations. There is a need for improved communication, both within professions and between professionals on one hand, and between professionals and the patients/public on the other. Coupled with this, the issue of consent to imaging procedures was revisited. The need for good evidence-based referral guidelines or criteria of acceptability was emphasised, as was the need for their global adaptation and dissemination.

CONCLUSION

Clinical audit was regarded as a key tool in ensuring that justification becomes an effective, transparent and accountable part of normal radiological practice. In summary, justification would be facilitated by the "3 As": awareness, appropriateness and audit.

Effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Inspection systems are used in health care to promote quality improvements, i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes. These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of health care. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational, provider and patient level outcomes are not clear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Scopus, HMIC, Index to Theses and Intute from their inception dates up to May 2011. There was no language restriction and studies were included regardless of publication status. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time-series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one cluster-RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals (Salmon 2003) and one ITS involving all acute trusts in England (OPM 2009) for inclusion in this review.Salmon and colleagues (Salmon 2003) showed mixed effects of a hospital accreditation system on the compliance with COHSASA (the Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Significantly improved total mean compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was found for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 30% (23% to 57%) (P < 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). A sub-analysis of 424 a priori identified critical criteria (19 service elements) showed significantly improved compliance with the critical standards (P < 0.001). The score increased from 41% (21% to 46%) to 75% (55% to 96%) in intervention hospitals, but was unchanged in control hospitals (37%). Only one of the nine intervention hospitals gained full accreditation status at the end of the study period, with two others reached pre-accreditation status.The median intervention effect (range) for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4 (-1.9 to +11.8) and only one of the eight indicators: 'nurses perception of clinical quality, participation and teamwork' was significantly improved (mean intervention effect 5.7, P = 0.03).Re-analysis of the MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) data showed statistically non-significant effects of the Healthcare Commissions Infection Inspection programme.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We only identified two studies for inclusion in this review, which highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness of external inspection systems. No firm conclusions could therefore be drawn about the effectiveness of external inspection on compliance with standards.

Monitoring Clinical Standards in a Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis Program

Multiple factors may influence the effectiveness of a chronic peritoneal dialysis program. Continuous monitoring of various aspects of clinical standards with reviews enhances opportunities for bridging the gap between existing practice and good practice, and good practice to best practice.

The discipline of improvement: something old, something new?

In response to calls to improve the efficacy of health care services, there is an increasing focus on the processes of achieving a continuous improvement of services and practices. One specific response is that of the NHS Modernization Agency and National Health Service University in relation to the Discipline of Improvement in Health and Social Care. This paper draws on a study that explored the underpinning knowledge base of the Discipline of Improvement and focuses on describing the framework that was developed. The two-dimensional framework is composed of five primary categories, which cross-link to 11 competencies. The study concludes that the Discipline of Improvement draws together a group of ideas that together cohere to form a distinctive model to aid the improvement of health care. While some of these ideas are well-established, the way in which the Discipline of Improvement makes connections between them offers something new to our understanding of change in the complex world of health care provision, and to nursing management.