Quality and safety in pediatric anesthesia: how can guidelines, checklists, and initiatives improve the outcome?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cognitive aids are tangible or intangible instruments that guide users in decision-making and in the completion of a complex series of tasks. Common examples include mnemonics, checklists, and algorithms. Cognitive aids constitute very effective approaches to achieve well tolerated, high quality healthcare because they promote highly reliable processes that reduce the likelihood of failure. This review describes recent advances in quality improvement for pediatric anesthesiology with emphasis on application of cognitive aids to impact patient safety and outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Quality improvement encourages the examination of systems to create stable processes and ultimately high-value care. Quality improvement initiatives in pediatric anesthesiology have been shown to improve outcomes and the delivery of efficient and effective care at many institutions. The use of checklists, in particular, improves adherence to evidence-based care in crisis situations, decreases catheter-associated bloodstream infections, reduces blood product utilization, and improves communication during the patient handoff process. Use of this simple tool has been associated with decreased morbidity, fewer medical errors, improved provider satisfaction, and decreased mortality in nonanesthesia disciplines as well. SUMMARY: Successful quality improvement initiatives utilize cognitive aids such as checklists and have been shown to optimize pediatric patient experience and anesthesia outcomes and reduce perioperative complications.

Using quality improvement methods to optimize resources and maximize productivity in an anesthesia screening and consultation clinic.

OBJECTIVES: The anesthesia preoperative screening and evaluation of a patient prior to surgery is a critical element in the safe and effective delivery of anesthesia care. In this era of increased focus on cost containment, many anesthesia practices are looking for ways to maximize productivity while maintaining the quality of the preoperative evaluation process by harnessing and optimizing all available resources. We sought to develop a Nurse Practitioner-assisted Preoperative Anesthesia Screening process using quality improvement methods with the goal of maintaining the quality of the screening process, while at the same time redirecting anesthesiologists time for the provision of nonoperating room (OR) anesthesia. The Nurse practitioner (NP) time (approximately 10 h per week) directed to this project was gained as a result of an earlier resource utilization improvement project within the Department of Anesthesia. The goal of this improvement project was to increase the proportion of patient anesthesia screens conducted by NPs to 50% within 6 months. METHODS: After discussion with key stakeholders of the process, a multidisciplinary improvement team identified a set of operational factors (key drivers) believed to be important to the success of the preoperative anesthesia screening process. These included the development of dedicated NP time for daily screening, NP competency and confidence with the screening process, effective mentoring by anesthesiologists, standardization of screening process, and communication with stakeholders of the process, that is, surgeons. These key drivers focused on the development of several interventions such as (i) NP education in the preoperative anesthesia screening for consultation process by a series of didactic lectures conducted by anesthesiologists, and NP's shadowing an anesthesiologist during the screening process, (ii) Anesthesiologist mentoring and assessment of NP screenings using the dual screening process whereby both anesthesiologists and NP conducted the screening process independently and results were compared and discussed, (iii) Examination and re-adjustment of NP schedules to provide time for daily screening while preserving other responsibilities, and (iv) Standardization through the development of guidelines for the preoperative screening process. Measures recorded included the percentage of patient anesthesia screens conducted by NP, the percentage of dual screens with MD and NP agreement regarding the screening decision, and the average times taken for the anesthesiologist and NP screening process. RESULTS: After implementation of these interventions, the percentage of successful NP-assisted anesthesia consultation screenings increased from 0% to 65% over a period of 6 months. The Anesthesiologists' time redirected to non-OR anesthesia averaged at least 8 h a week. The percentage of dual screens with agreement on the screening decision was 96% (goal >95%). The overall average time taken for a NP screen was 8.2 min vs 4.5 min for an anesthesiologist screen. The overall average operating room delays and cancelations for cases on the day of surgery remained the same. CONCLUSIONS: By applying quality improvement methods, we identified key drivers for the institution of an NP-assisted preoperative screening process and successfully implemented this process while redirecting anesthesiologists' time for the provision of non-OR anesthesia. This project was instrumental in improving the matching of provider skills with clinical need while maintaining superior outcomes at the lowest possible cost.

A comparison of inhalational inductions for children in the operating room vs the induction room.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate about the use of an induction room (IR) compared with an operating room (OR) for inhalational induction in children. The quality of the anesthesia induction between these two physical environments has not been studied previously. We sought to compare child distress, OR utilization and efficiency, and parental satisfaction and safety, between an IR and an OR. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, we studied 501 developmentally appropriate children ages 1-14 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III, presenting for the inhalational induction of anesthesia, undergoing outpatient or outpatient-admit ENT surgery. Inductions were performed in an IR (IR group) or OR (OR group) with parent(s) present. Child behavioral compliance was assessed using the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC), a validated observational scale from 0 to 10 consisting of 10 behaviors; an ICC score ≥4 was considered poor behavioral compliance. Times for transport, anesthesia start, ready for surgery, surgery finish, out of OR, and total case process times were recorded. OR utilization and OR efficiency was derived using these times. Data on number and experience of clinical providers were also collected. Parent satisfaction with the induction was measured using a satisfaction survey. Safety was measured by recording respiratory complications during induction. The chi-squared test was conducted to determine whether induction location was associated with level of behavioral compliance. A multivariable proportional odds model was used to control for risk factors. OR utilization and efficiency were analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in ICC scores between the groups (P-value = 0.12). Anesthesia, nonoperative, and transport time were statistically less in the OR group when compared with the IR group, although total case process times were similar in both groups. While OR efficiency was significantly higher for the OR group (P-value = 0.0096), OR utilization did not differ between groups (P-value = 0.288). The OR group had a significantly higher number of anesthesia providers and a more experienced surgical team. Parents in the two groups were equally satisfied with their experience during induction, and none of the subjects had respiratory complications during the anesthesia induction. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences in child distress, parent satisfaction, and respiratory complications between inductions conducted in the IR vs the OR. Differences in utilization, efficiency, and turnover were minimal and not operationally significant. Capital equipment, space, and staffing strategies should be key drivers in considerations for the use of IRs, and in the design of ORs with IRs.

Real-time assessment of perioperative behaviors in children and parents: development and validation of the perioperative adult child behavioral interaction scale.

BACKGROUND: Behavior in response to distressful events during outpatient pediatric surgery can contribute to postoperative maladaptive behaviors, such as temper tantrums, nightmares, bed-wetting, and attention seeking. Currently available perioperative behavioral assessment tools have limited utility in guiding interventions to ameliorate maladaptive behaviors because they cannot be used in real time, are only intended to be used during 1 phase of the experience (e.g., perioperative), or provide only a static assessment of the child (e.g., level of anxiety). A simple, reliable, real-time tool is needed to appropriately identify children and parents whose behaviors in response to distressful events at any point in the perioperative continuum could benefit from timely behavioral intervention. Our specific aims were to (1) refine the Perioperative Adult Child Behavioral Interaction Scale (PACBIS) to improve its reliability in identifying perioperative behaviors and (2) validate the refined PACBIS against several established instruments. METHODS: The PACBIS was used to assess the perioperative behaviors of 89 children aged 3 to 12 years presenting for adenotonsillectomy and their parents. Assessments using the PACBIS were made during perioperative events likely to prove distressing to children and/or parents (perioperative measurement of blood pressure, induction of anesthesia, and removal of the IV catheter before discharge). Static measurements of perioperative anxiety and behavioral compliance during anesthetic induction were made using the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale and the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC). Each event was videotaped for later scoring using the Child-Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale-Short Form (CAMPIS-SF) and Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress (OSBD). Interrater reliability using linear weighted kappa (kappa(w)) and multiple validations using Spearman correlation coefficients were analyzed. RESULTS: The PACBIS demonstrated good to excellent interrater reliability, with kappa(w) ranging from 0.62 to 0.94. The Child Coping and Child Distress subscores of the PACBIS demonstrated strong concurrent correlations with the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, ICC, CAMPIS-SF, and OSBD. The Parent Positive subscore of the PACBIS correlated strongly with the CAMPIS-SF and OSBD, whereas the Parent Negative subscore showed significant correlation with the ICC. The PACBIS has strong construct and predictive validities. CONCLUSIONS: The PACBIS is a simple, easy to use, real-time instrument to evaluate perioperative behaviors of both children and parents. It has good to excellent interrater reliability and strong concurrent validity against currently accepted scales. The PACBIS offers a means to identify maladaptive child or parental behaviors in real time, making it possible to intervene to modify such behaviors in a timely fashion.