An environmental scan of quality indicators in critical care

Evaluation of ICUs and weight of quality control indicators: an exploratory study based on Chinese ICU quality data from 2015 to 2020

This study aimed to explore key quality control factors that affected the prognosis of intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Chinese mainland over six years (2015-2020). The data for this study were from 31 provincial and municipal hospitals (3425 hospital ICUs) and included 2 110 685 ICU patients, for a total of 27 607 376 ICU hospitalization days. We found that 15 initially established quality control indicators were good predictors of patient prognosis, including percentage of ICU patients out of all inpatients (%), percentage of ICU bed occupancy of total inpatient bed occupancy (%), percentage of all ICU inpatients with an APACHE II score ⩾15 (%), three-hour (surviving sepsis campaign) SSC bundle compliance (%), six-hour SSC bundle compliance (%), rate of microbe detection before antibiotics (%), percentage of drug deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis (%), percentage of unplanned endotracheal extubations (%), percentage of patients reintubated within 48 hours (%), unplanned transfers to the ICU (%), 48-h ICU readmission rate (%), ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (per 1000 ventilator days), catheter related blood stream infection (CRBSI) (per 1000 catheter days), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) (per 1000 catheter days), in-hospital mortality (%). When exploratory factor analysis was applied, the 15 indicators were divided into 6 core elements that varied in weight regarding quality evaluation: nosocomial infection management (21.35%), compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines (17.97%), ICU resources (17.46%), airway management (15.53%), prevention of deep-vein thrombosis (14.07%), and severity of patient condition (13.61%). Based on the different weights of the core elements associated with the 15 indicators, we developed an integrated quality scoring system defined as F score=21.35%xnosocomial infection management + 17.97%xcompliance with SSC guidelines + 17.46%×ICU resources + 15.53%×airway management + 14.07%×DVT prevention + 13.61%×severity of patient condition. This evidence-based quality scoring system will help in assessing the key elements of quality management and establish a foundation for further optimization of the quality control indicator system.

A Rapid Learning Health System to Support Implementation of Early Intervention Services for Psychosis in Quebec, Canada: Study Protocol. (Preprint)

Background

Given the strong evidence of their effectiveness, early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis are being widely implemented. However, heterogeneity in the implementation of essential components remains an ongoing challenge. Rapid-learning health systems (RLHSs) that embed data collection in clinical settings for real-time learning and continuous quality improvement can address this challenge. Therefore, we implemented an RLHS in 11 EIS in Quebec, Canada.

Objective

This project aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing an RLHS in EIS and assess its impact on compliance with standards for essential EIS components.

Methods

Funding for this project was secured in July 2019, and ethics approval was received in December 2019. The implementation of this RLHS involves 6 iterative phases: external and internal scan, design, implementation, evaluation, adjustment, and dissemination. Multiple stakeholder groups (service users, families, clinicians, researchers, decision makers, and provincial EIS associations) are involved in all phases. Meaningful EIS quality indicators (eg, satisfaction and timeliness of response to referrals) were selected based on a literature review, provincial guidelines, and stakeholder consensus on prioritization of indicators. A digital infrastructure was designed and deployed comprising a user-friendly interface for routinely collecting data from programs; a digital terminal and mobile app to collect feedback from service users and families regarding care received, health, and quality of life; and data analytic, visualization, and reporting functionalities to provide participating programs with real-time feedback on their ongoing performance in relation to standards and to other programs, including tailored recommendations. Our community of practice conducts activities, leveraging insights from data to build program capacity while continuously aligning their practices with standards and best practices. Guided by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, we are collecting quantitative and qualitative data on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of our RLHS for evaluating its impacts.

Results

Phase 1 (identifying RLHS indicators for EIS based on a literature synthesis, a survey, and consensus meetings with all stakeholder groups) and phase 2 (developing and implementing the RLHS digital infrastructure) are completed (September 2019 to May 2020). Phases 3 to 5 have been ongoing (June 2020 to June 2022). Continuous data collection through the RLHS data capture platforms and real-time feedback to all stakeholders are deployed. Phase 6 will be implemented in 2022 to assess the impact of the RLHS using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework with quantitative and qualitative data.

Conclusions

This project will yield valuable insights into the implementation of RLHS in EIS, offering preliminary evidence of its acceptability, feasibility, and impacts on program-level outcomes. The findings will refine our RLHS further and advance approaches that use data, stakeholder voices, and collaborative learning to improve outcomes and quality in services for psychosis.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/37346

Use of environmental scans in health services delivery research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent and nature of evidence on the use of the environmental scan (ES) in the health services delivery literature.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the five-stage scoping review methodology outlined by Khalil et al. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies was completed. Seven electronic databases and the grey literature were searched. Pairs of researchers independently performed two levels of screening and data extraction. Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six studies were included in the scoping review. Researchers conducted ESs for many purposes, the most common being to examine the current state of programmes, services or policies. Recommendations were informed by ESs in 20% of studies. Most common data collection methods were literature review (71%), key informant or semistructured interviews (46%) and surveys (35%). Over half (53%) of the studies used a combination of passive (looking at information eg, literature, policies, guidelines) and active (looking for information eg, surveys, interviews) approaches to data collection. Person sources of data (eg, healthcare stakeholders, community representatives) and non-person sources of data (eg, documents, electronic databases, the web) were drawn on to a similar extent. The thematic analysis of the definitions/descriptions yielded several themes including instrument of discovery, knowledge synthesis, forward-looking and decision making. Research gaps identified included absence of a standard definition, inconsistencies in terminology and lack of guiding frameworks in the health services delivery context.

CONCLUSION

ESs were conducted to gather evidence and to help inform decision making on a range of policy and health services delivery issues across the continuum of care. Consistency in terminology, a consensus definition and more guidance on ES design may help provide structure for researchers and other stakeholders, and ultimately advance ES as a methodological approach. A working definition of ES in a health services delivery context is presented.

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

AIM

To use positive deviance to identify actionable processes of care that may improve outcomes and experience from the perspectives of prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay survivors and family members.

DESIGN

Prospective qualitative interview study in two geographically distant settings: Canada (2018/19) and the United Kingdom (2019/20).

METHODS

Patient and family participant inclusion criteria comprised: aged over 18 years, ICU stay in last 2 years of over 7 days, able to recall ICU stay and provided informed consent. We conducted semi-structured in-person or telephone interviews. Data were analysed using a positive deviance approach.

RESULTS

We recruited 29 participants (15 Canadian; 14 UK). Of these, 11 were survivors of prolonged ICU stay and 18 family members. We identified 22 actionable processes (16 common to Canadian and UK participants, 4 Canadian only and 2 UK only). We grouped processes under three themes: physical and functional recovery (nine processes), patient psychological well-being (seven processes) and family relations (six processes). Most commonly identified physical/functional processes were regular physiotherapy, and fundamental hygiene and elimination care. For patient psychological well-being: normalizing the environment and routines, and alleviating boredom and loneliness. For family relations: proactive communication, flexible family visiting and presence with facilities for family. Our positive deviance analysis approach revealed that incorporation of these actionable processes into clinical practice was the exception as opposed to the norm perceived driven by individual acts of kindness and empathy as opposed to standardized processes.

CONCLUSION

Actionable processes of care important to prolonged ICU stay survivors and family members differ from those frequently used in ICU quality improvement (QI) tools.

IMPACT

Our study emphasizes the need to develop QI tools that standardize delivery of actionable processes important to patients and families experiencing a prolonged ICU stay. As the largest healthcare professional group, nurses can play an essential role in leading this.

The future development of intensive care quality indicators - a methods paper

Introduction: Medical quality indicators (QI) are important tools in the evaluation of medical quality. Their development is subject to specific methodological requirements, which include practical applicability. This is especially true for intensive care medicine with its complex processes and their interactions. This methods paper presents the status quo and shows necessary methodological developments for intensive care QI. For this purpose, a cooperation with the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies' Institute for Medical Knowledge Management (AWMF-IMWi) was established. Methodology: Review of published German manuals for QI development from guidelines and narrative review of quality indicators with a focus on evidence and consensus-based guideline recommendations. Future methodological adaptations of indicator development for improved operationalization, measurability and pilot testing are presented, and a development process is proposed. Results: The development of intensive care quality indicators in Germany is based on an established process. In the future, additional evaluation criteria (QUALIFY criteria) will be applied to assess the evidence base. In addition, a continuous exchange between the national steering committee of the DIVI responsible for QI development and guideline development groups involved in intensive care medicine is planned. Conclusion: Intensive care quality indicators will have to meet improved methodological requirements in the future by means of an improved development process. Future QI development is intended to improve the structure of the development process, with a focus on scientific evidence and a link to guideline projects. This is intended to achieve the goal of a broad application of QI and to further evaluate its relevance for patient outcome and performance of institutions.

Ventilator-associated events, not ventilator-associated pneumonia, is associated with higher mortality in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated events (VAE), using objective diagnostic criteria, are the preferred quality indicator for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) for greater than 48 hours. We aim to identify the occurrence of VAE in our trauma population, the impact on survival, and length of stay, as compared to the traditional definition of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

METHODS

This retrospective review included adult trauma patients, who were Washington residents, admitted between 2012 and 2017, and required at least 3 days of MV. Exclusions included patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale head score greater than 4 and burn related mechanisms of injury. We matched trauma registry data with our institutional, physician-adjudicated, and culture-confirmed ventilator event database. We compared the clinical outcomes of ventilator-free days, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and likelihood of death between VAE and VAP.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred thirty-three trauma patients met criteria; 124 (8.1%) patients developed VAE, 114 (7.4%) patients developed VAP, and 63 (4.1%) patients met criteria for both VAE and VAP. After adjusted analyses, patients with VAE were more likely to die (hazard ratio [HR], 2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-5.68), than those with VAP, as well those patients with neither diagnosis (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.83-4.38). Patients with VAP were no more likely to die (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.91-2.68) than those with neither diagnosis. Patients with VAE had fewer ventilator-free days than those with VAP (HR, -2.71; 95% CI, -4.74 to -0.68).

CONCLUSION

Critically injured trauma patients who develop VAE are three times more likely to die and utilize almost 3 days more MV than those that develop VAP. The objective criteria of VAE make it a promising indicator on which quality indicator efforts should be focused. Future studies should be aimed at identification of modifiable risk factors for VAE and their impact on outcome, as these patients are at high risk for death.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, level III.

[Quality indicators in intensive care medicine : Background and practical use]

Quality indicators are used in medicine to indirectly reflect quality via key figures. Intensive care medicine, in particular, contains a large number of standard processes for which quality monitoring is a suitable solution. The indicators used in quality assurance have advantages and disadvantages. The evaluation of fundamental aspects of the use of indicators in intensive care medicine can be illustrated by means of different types of indicators. A comparison of different indicators-the intensive care quality indicators of the DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin [German interdisciplinary association for intensive care and emergency medicine]) and a selection of international indicators-shows possible benefits of indicators, but also their limits in applicability and meaningfulness. The comparison also takes into account the possible applicability for individual institutions. There is no gold standard for the development of quality indicators. Nevertheless, methodological progress has been made in this area in recent years. Since the use of indicators has so far been unable to demonstrate any scientifically verifiable benefit for patient outcome, this aspect will have to come into the focus regarding development and application in the future. In addition, topics for the development of key figures are mentioned, which above all must be oriented more strongly towards the long-term well-being of patients.

Monitoring intensive care unit performance-impact of a novel individualised performance scorecard in critical care medicine: a mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients admitted to a critical care medicine (CCM) environment, including an intensive care unit (ICU), are susceptible to harm and significant resource utilisation. Therefore, a strategy to optimise provider performance is required. Performance scorecards are used by institutions for the purposes of driving quality improvement. There is no widely accepted or standardised scorecard that has been used for overall CCM performance. We aim to improve quality of care, patient safety and patient/family experience in CCM practice through the utilisation of a standardised, repeatable and multidimensional performance scorecard, designed to provide a continuous review of ICU physician and nurse practice, as well as departmental metrics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a mixed-methods, controlled before and after study to assess the impact of a CCM-specific quality scorecard. Scorecard metrics were developed through expert consensus and existing literature. The study will include 19 attending CCM physicians and approximately 300 CCM nurses. Patient data for scorecard compilation are collected daily from bedside flow sheets. Preintervention baseline data will be collected for 6 months for each participant. After this, each participant will receive their scorecard measures. Following a 3-month washout period, postintervention data will be collected for 6 months. The primary outcome will be change in performance metrics following the provision of scorecard feedback to subjects. A cost analysis will also be performed, with the purpose of comparing total ICU costs prior to implementation of the scorecard with total ICU costs following implementation of the scorecard. The qualitative portion will include interviews with participants following the intervention phase. Interviews will be analysed in order to identify recurrent themes and subthemes, for the purposes of driving scorecard improvement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the local research ethics board. Publication of results is anticipated in 2019. If this intervention is found to improve patient- and unit-directed outcomes, with evidence of cost-effectiveness, it would support the utilisation of such a scorecard as a quality standard in CCM.