International implementation of a care review process for mortality reviews: improving quality and safety virtually across the world.

Mortality reviews are intended to produce transparent, non-punitive personal and organisational learning that leads to systematic improvement in care. Mayo Clinic has a well-established care review process that has accomplished that objective within our system. The establishment of a new hospital, a joint venture between Mayo Clinic and Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City (SSMC) in Abu Dhabi, provided a unique opportunity to share this care review process internationally.During a baseline measurement period, only 78.3% of mortality reviews at SSMC were completed within 45 days, 16.7 percentage points below the target of 95%. A collaboration between SSMC and Mayo Clinic aimed to accelerate the design and implementation of a care review process system. Collaboration was constrained by travel restrictions imposed by COVID-19, language barriers, legal privacy concerns, and differing electronic health records.Mayo Clinic facilitated a 12-week virtual engagement with SSMC using weekly video meetings, education and training regarding Mayo Clinic's care review process.The engagement led to implementation of weekly mortality review huddles, restructuring of the mortality review committee to be multidisciplinary, use of a standardised taxonomy to characterise opportunities to improve care and creation of an education/communication plan regarding identified improvement opportunities using change management strategies.After the care review process for mortality reviews was instituted, SSMC achieved and sustained a target of 100% of mortality reviews completed within 45 days. The new process resulted in improved mortality review indicators and provided quality feedback to staff with engagement in performance improvement efforts.A virtual collaboration led to successful implementation of a care review process and substantial gains in the effectiveness of the quality programme at SSMC. This could serve as a model to assist other organisations, even if in-person engagement is hindered.

Development, implementation and evaluation of high-quality virtual preoperative anaesthetic assessment during COVID-19 and beyond: a quality improvement report.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative risk factor identification and optimisation are widely accepted as the gold standard of care for elective surgery and are essential for reducing morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 public health restrictions required a careful balance between ensuring best medical practices and maintaining safety by minimising patient face-to-face attendance in the hospital. Based on the successful implementation of telemedicine (TM) in other medical specialties and its feasibility in the preoperative context, this study aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a high-quality virtual preoperative anaesthetic assessment process. METHODS: The three-step model for improvement was used. The specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, time aim (step 1) and measures for improvement (step 2) were defined at the onset of the project. The plan-do-study-act tool was used for the structured implementation of improvement interventions (step 3) in three phases. Data relating to virtual and in-person referrals, assessments, did-not-attend (DNA) rate, consultation time, day of surgery delays and cancellations, and service-user and provider experience surveys were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 2805 patients were assessed in the preoperative anaesthetic assessment clinic between July 2020 and March 2021. The mean rate of virtual preoperative assessments was 50% (SD ±10) (1390/2805). 0.1% (30/2805) were inappropriately referred on the alternative pathway. The DNA rate was 0.4% (8/1398) and 3% (43/1458) for virtual and in-person pathways, respectively. The mean consultation times for virtual and in-person attendance were 19 (SD ±7) and 31 (SD ±13) min, respectively. There were five same-day surgery cancellations and one delay due to medical reasons. When asked about their experience with the virtual assessment, both service users and providers reported high satisfaction, minimal technical difficulties and shared concerns about limited opportunities for physical examination. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first implementational studies to comprehensively outline the feasibility of TM in preoperative anaesthetic assessment during COVID-19.

NEPHwork: creating a quality improvement and research network for UK renal trainees.

NEPHwork was established in 2020 as a renal specialty trainee-driven national quality improvement and research network with the aim of coupling the benefits of trainee-led collaboration with the rich data collection infrastructure established by the UK renal registry. NEPHwork was established to support the development, coordination and delivery of audit and research projects by renal trainees on a national scale. The first collaborative project centred on the compliance with care quality standards in managing acute kidney injury. The project enabled a large amount of data to be collected over a relatively short period of time and allowed comparison between renal units involved in contributing to the data. The initiation of the NEPHwork collaboration had to overcome delays and service pressure related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the method of linkage analysis used in the data collection and lack of cohesion with regional information technology (IT) services prevented trainees from certain regions from contributing to the project and this is a key priority for the next NEPHwork collaboration.

Can Quality Improvement Methodologies Derived from Manufacturing Industry Improve Care in Cardiac Surgery? A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare is required to be effectively organised to ensure that growing, aging and medically more complex populations have timely access to high-quality, affordable care. Cardiac surgery is no exception to this, especially due to the competition for and demand on hospital resources, such as operating rooms and intensive care capacity. This is challenged more since the COVID-19 pandemic led to postponed care and prolonged waiting lists. In other sectors, Quality Improvement Methodologies (QIM) derived from the manufacturing industry have proven effective in enabling more efficient utilisation of existing capacity and resources and in improving the quality of care. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the ability of such QIM to improve care in cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and Wiley/the Cochrane Library according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology. RESULTS: Ten articles were identified. The following QIM were used: Lean, Toyota Production System, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, Root Cause Analysis, Kaizen and Plan-Do-Study-Act. All reported one or more relevant improvements in patient-related (e.g., infection rates, ventilation time, mortality, adverse events, glycaemic control) and process-related outcomes (e.g., shorter waiting times, shorter transfer time and productivity). Elements to enhance the success included: multidisciplinary team engagement, a patient-oriented, data-driven approach, a sense of urgency and a focus on sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: In all ten papers describing the application of QIM initiatives to cardiac surgery, positive results, of varying magnitude, were reported. While the consistency of the available data is encouraging, the limited quantity and heterogenous quality of the evidence base highlights that more rigorous evaluation, including how best to employ manufacturing industry-derived QIM in cardiac surgery is warranted.

Education and training as key drivers for improving the quality of fluid balance charts: findings from a quality improvement project.

Reviewing fluid balance charts is a simple and effective method of assessing and monitoring the hydration status of patients. Several articles report that these charts are often either inaccurately or incompletely filled thereby limiting their usefulness in clinical practice. We had a similar experience in our practice at Kettering General Hospital and conducted a quality improvement project with a goal to increase the number of charts that were completely and accurately filled by a minimum of 50% in a 1-month period and to reassess the sustainability of this improvement after 6 months. Data from baseline measurements showed that only 25% of the charts in the ward had accurate measurements, 20% had correct daily totals and 14% had complete records of all intakes and losses. We collected feedback from nursing staff in the ward on what challenges they faced in using these charts and how best to support them. Corroborated by evidence from the literature, we discovered that inadequate training was a major factor responsible for the poor quality of documentation in these charts. Using simultaneous plan-do-study-act cycles, we designed and delivered personalised teaching on fluid balance chart documentation to the nursing staff. Subsequent data showed remarkable improvements in all the parameters we assessed. For instance, the proportion of charts with accurate measurements increased by 55% and those with complete entries by 122%. Unfortunately, we were unable to demonstrate sustainability of these improvements as our second set of data collection coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. In this project, we were able to demonstrate that simple and cost-efficient measures such as adequate training of nursing staff could remarkably improve the quality of fluid balance charts used in our hospitals. We suggest that this training should be included as part of the regular competency assessments for nurses and other healthcare staff.