Actionable processes of care important to patients and family who experienced a prolonged intensive care unit stay: Qualitative interview study

Codesign of a Quality Improvement Tool for Adults With Prolonged Critical Illness: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study

OBJECTIVES

Increasing numbers of patients experience a prolonged stay in intensive care. Yet existing quality improvement (QI) tools used to improve safety and standardize care are not designed for their specific needs. This may result in missed opportunities for care and contribute to worse outcomes. Following an experience-based codesign process, our objective was to build consensus on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness.

DESIGN

Items were identified from a previous systematic review and interviews with former patients, their care partners, and clinicians. Two rounds of an online modified Delphi survey were undertaken, and participants were asked to rate each item from 1 to 9 in terms of importance for effective care; where 1-3 was not important, 4-6 was important but not critical, and 7-9 was critically important for inclusion in the QI tool. A final consensus meeting was then moderated by an independent facilitator to further discuss and prioritize items.

SETTING

Carried out in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS/SUBJECTS

Former patients who experienced a stay of over 7 days in intensive care, their family members and ICU staff.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We recruited 116 participants: 63 healthcare professionals (54%), 45 patients (39%), and eight relatives (7%), to Delphi round 1, and retained 91 (78%) in round 2. Of the 39 items initially identified, 32 were voted "critically important" for inclusion in the QI tool by more than 70% of Delphi participants. These were prioritized further in a consensus meeting with 15 ICU clinicians, four former patients and one family member, and the final QI tool contains 25 items, including promoting patient and family involvement in decisions, providing continuity of care, and structured ventilator weaning and rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Using experience-based codesign and rigorous consensus-building methods we identified important content for a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness. Work is underway to understand tool acceptability and optimum implementation strategies.

The use of positive deviance approach to improve health service delivery and quality of care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Quality has been a persistent challenge in the healthcare system, particularly in resource-limited settings. As a result, the utilization of innovative approaches is required to help countries in their efforts to enhance the quality of healthcare. The positive deviance (PD) approach is an innovative approach that can be utilized to improve healthcare quality. The approach assumes that solutions to problems are already available within the community and identifying and sharing those solutions can help others to resolve existing issues. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding the use of the PD approach in healthcare system service delivery and quality improvement programs.

METHODS

Articles were retrieved from six international databases. The last date for article search was June 02, 2023, and no date restriction was applied. All articles were assessed for inclusion through a title and/or abstract read. Then, articles that passed the title and abstract review were screened by reading their full texts. In case of duplication, only the full-text published articles were retained. A descriptive mapping and evidence synthesis was done to present data with the guide of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the results are presented in text, table, and figure formats.

RESULTS

A total of 125 articles were included in this scoping review. More than half, 66 (52.8%), of the articles were from the United States, 11(8.8%) from multinational studies, 10 (8%) from Canada, 8 (6.4%) from the United Kingdom and the remaining, 30 (24%) are from other nations around the world. The scoping review indicates that several types of study designs can be applied in utilizing the PD approach for healthcare service and quality improvement programs. However, although validated performance measures are utilized to identify positive deviants (PDs) in many of the articles, some of the selection criteria utilized by authors lack clarity and are subject to potential bias. In addition, several limitations have been mentioned in the articles including issues in operationalizing PD, focus on leaders and senior managers and limited staff involvement, bias, lack of comparison, limited setting, and issues in generalizability/transferability of results from prospects perspective. Nevertheless, the limitations identified are potentially manageable and can be contextually resolved depending on the nature of the study. Furthermore, PD has been successfully employed in healthcare service and quality improvement programs including in increasing surgical care quality, hand hygiene practice, and reducing healthcare-associated infections.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review findings have indicated that healthcare systems have been able to enhance quality, reduce errors, and improve patient outcomes by identifying lessons from those who exhibit exceptional practices and implementing successful strategies in their practice. All the outcomes of PD-based research, however, are dependent on the first step of identifying true PDs. Hence, it is critical that PDs are identified using objective and validated measures of performance as failure to identify true PDs can subsequently lead to failure in identifying best practices for learning and dissemination to other contextually similar settings.

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.

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.

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.