Developing consensus for definitions of key veterinary-specific quality improvement (QI) terms using an eDelphi-study method.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) methods are a continuous process of iterative tests to improve the quality of a service or product. Using common language has been linked to the successful implementation of QI in human healthcare. This study aimed to assimilate and achieve consensus on veterinary-specific definitions for terms associated with quality care and QI methods in UK veterinary practice. METHODS: A four-round modified eDelphi process with a panel of 50 UK veterinary practice stakeholders was used to generate consensus. The panel selected or suggested the definition they best felt 'fitted' each term. Consensus was reached if there was >70% agreement, and terms were eliminated if there was <15% selection. RESULTS: Thirty-one panellists completed all three rounds of eDelphi; eight participants completed an optional feedback round. From 14 terms, 10 reached consensus, leaving four unresolved definitions. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of terms reached consensus; 90% were new or amended definitions proposed by panel members. Utilising plain English refined by stakeholders will allow successful implementation of QI in veterinary healthcare. Not all terms achieved consensus, highlighting a need for further research to enable successful integration of QI principles as seen in human healthcare.

The impact of automatic video auditing with real-time feedback on the quality and quantity of handwash events in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality handwashing contributes to the spread of nosocomial infections. We investigate the impact of automatic video auditing (AVA) with feedback on the quality and quantity of handwashing in a hospital setting. METHODS: AVA systems were mounted over all handwash sinks in a surgical unit. Phase 1 established baseline handwashing quality and quantity. Phase 2 examined the impact of real-time performance feedback, and phase 3 examined the incremental impact of weekly team performance reports. Phase 4 remeasured the baseline without feedback. RESULTS: A total of 3,606 handwash events were audited. During phase 2 and 3, compliance with the World Health Organization technique improved from 15.7%-46% (P < .0001), and the average number of handwash events per patient per day increased from 0.91-2.25 (P < .0001). Performance returned to baseline in phase 4. CONCLUSIONS: AVA with real-time feedback significantly improved the quality and quantity of handwashing. The combination of AVA with electronic monitoring will allow simultaneous auditing of hand hygiene quantity and quality. The impact of cognitive offloading onto the technology may have contributed to the return to baseline at the end of the study, and suggests further research is required in this area.