Implementation of the World Health Organization Trauma Care Checklist Program in 11 Centers Across Multiple Economic Strata: Effect on Care Process Measures.

BACKGROUND: Trauma contributes more than ten percent of the global burden of disease. Initial assessment and resuscitation of trauma patients often requires rapid diagnosis and management of multiple concurrent complex conditions, and errors are common. We investigated whether implementing a trauma care checklist would improve care for injured patients in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, the impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma Care Checklist program was assessed in 11 hospitals using a stepped wedge pre- and post-intervention comparison with randomly assigned intervention start dates. Study sites represented nine countries with diverse economic and geographic contexts. Primary end points were adherence to process of care measures; secondary data on morbidity and mortality were also collected. Multilevel logistic regression models examined differences in measures pre- versus post-intervention, accounting for patient age, gender, injury severity, and center-specific variability. RESULTS: Data were collected on 1641 patients before and 1781 after program implementation. Patient age (mean 34 ± 18 vs. 34 ± 18), sex (21 vs. 22 % female), and the proportion of patients with injury severity scores (ISS) ≥ 25 (10 vs. 10 %) were similar before and after checklist implementation (p > 0.05). Improvement was found for 18 of 19 process measures, including greater odds of having abdominal examination (OR 3.26), chest auscultation (OR 2.68), and distal pulse examination (OR 2.33) (all p < 0.05). These changes were robust to several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO Trauma Care Checklist was associated with substantial improvements in patient care process measures among a cohort of patients in diverse settings.

Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai.

INTRODUCTION: Injury is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries. Effective trauma surveillance is imperative to guide research and quality improvement interventions, so an accurate metric for quantifying injury severity is crucial. The objectives of this study are (1) to assess the feasibility of calculating five injury scoring systems--ISS (injury severity score), RTS (revised trauma score), KTS (Kampala trauma score), MGAP (mechanism, GCS (Glasgow coma score), age, pressure) and GAP (GCS, age, pressure)--with data from a trauma registry in a lower middle-income country and (2) to determine which of these scoring systems most accurately predicts in-hospital mortality in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from an institutional trauma registry in Mumbai, India. Values for each score were calculated when sufficient data were available. Logistic regression was used to compare the correlation between each score and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: There were sufficient data recorded to calculate ISS in 73% of patients, RTS in 35%, KTS in 35%, MGAP in 88% and GAP in 92%. ISS was the weakest predictor of in-hospital mortality, while RTS, KTS, MGAP and GAP scores all correlated well with in-hospital mortality (area under ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve 0.69 for ISS, 0.85 for RTS, 0.86 for KTS, 0.84 for MGAP, 0.85 for GAP). Respiratory rate measurements, missing in 63% of patients, were a major barrier to calculating RTS and KTS. CONCLUSIONS: Given the realities of medical practice in low- and middle-income countries, it is reasonable to modify the approach to characterising injury severity to favour simplified injury scoring systems that accurately predict in-hospital mortality despite limitations in trauma registry datasets.

Audit-identified avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths in low resource settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Audits provide a rational framework for quality improvement by systematically assessing clinical practices against accepted standards with the aim to develop recommendations and interventions that target modifiable deficiencies in care. Most childbirth-associated mortality audits in developing countries are focused on a single facility and, up to now, the avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths cataloged in these reports have not been pooled and analyzed. We sought to identity the most frequent avoidable factors in childbirth-related deaths globally through a systematic review of all published mortality audits in low and lower-middle income countries. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of published literature from 1965 to November 2011 in Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, LILACS and African Index Medicus. Inclusion criteria were audits from low and lower-middle income countries that identified at least one avoidable factor in maternal or perinatal mortality. Each study included in the analysis was assigned a quality score using a previously published instrument. A meta-analysis was performed for each avoidable factor taking into account the sample sizes and quality score from each individual audit. The study was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies comprising 44 datasets and a total of 6,205 audited deaths met inclusion criteria. The analysis yielded 42 different avoidable factors, which fell into four categories: health worker-oriented factors, patient-oriented factors, transport/referral factors, and administrative/supply factors. The top three factors by attributable deaths were substandard care by a health worker, patient delay, and deficiencies in blood transfusion capacity (accounting for 688, 665, and 634 deaths attributable, respectively). Health worker-oriented factors accounted for two-thirds of the avoidable factors identified. CONCLUSIONS: Audits provide insight into where systematic deficiencies in clinical care occur and can therefore provide crucial direction for the targeting of interventions to mitigate or eliminate health system failures. Given that the main causes of maternal and perinatal deaths are generally consistent across low resource settings, the specific avoidable factors identified in this review can help to inform the rational design of health systems with the aim of achieving continued progress towards Millennium Development Goals Four and Five.

Designing the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program to improve quality of care at childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Poor-quality care during institutional births in low- and middle-income countries is a major contributing factor to preventable maternal and newborn harm, but progress has been slow in identifying effective methods to address these deficiencies at scale. Based on the success of checklist programs in other disciplines, WHO led the design and field testing of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist-a 29-item tool that targets the major causes of maternal and newborn mortality globally. METHODS: The development process consisted of comprehensive evidence and guideline review, in-person consultation with content experts and other key stakeholders, iterative refinement through ongoing discussions with a wide collaborator network, and field evaluation for usability in 9 countries, primarily in Africa and Asia. Pilot testing in South India demonstrated major improvement in health workers' delivery of essential safety practices after introduction of the program. RESULTS: WHO has launched a global effort to support further evaluation of the program in a range of contexts, and a randomized trial is underway in North India to measure the effectiveness of the program in reducing severe maternal, fetal, and newborn harm. CONCLUSION: A novel checklist program has been developed to support health workers in low-resource settings to prevent avoidable childbirth-related deaths.

Case studies of patient safety research classics to build research capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening research capacity is a key priority and rate-limiting step for conducting patient safety research, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, but also in other settings where such research is currently limited. Case studies of classic publications in patient safety research were therefore developed as part of a larger strategy aimed at increasing the knowledge base and building the research capacity required for making health care safer and reducing harm to patients. METHODS: A multistep method was used to develop the case studies, which involved developing a theoretical framework for classifying patient safety research articles; purposively selecting articles to illustrate a range of research methods and study designs; and involving the articles' lead authors to provide context, review the summaries, and offer advice to future patient safety researchers. RESULTS: The series of patient safety research case studies used 17 examples to illustrate how different research methods and study designs can be used to answer different types of research questions across five stages of the research cycle: (1) measuring harm, (2) understanding causes, (3) identifying solutions, (4) evaluating impact, and (5) translating evidence into safer care. No single study design or research method is better in all circumstances. Choosing the most appropriate method and study design depends on the stage in the research cycle, the objectives, the research question, the subject area, the setting, and the resources available. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond serving as didactic tools in assisting future leaders in patient safety research to build up their own competencies, the case studies help to illuminate the burgeoning field of patient safety research as a an important vehicle for reducing patient harm and improving health outcomes worldwide.

Improving quality of care for maternal and newborn health: prospective pilot study of the WHO safe childbirth checklist program.

BACKGROUND: Most maternal deaths, intrapartum-related stillbirths, and newborn deaths in low income countries are preventable but simple, effective methods for improving safety in institutional births have not been devised. Checklist-based interventions aid management of complex or neglected tasks and have been shown to reduce harm in healthcare. We hypothesized that implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program, a novel childbirth safety program for institutional births incorporating a 29-item checklist, would increase delivery of essential childbirth practices linked with improved maternal and perinatal health outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A pilot, pre-post-intervention study was conducted in a sub-district level birth center in Karnataka, India between July and December 2010. We prospectively observed health workers that attended to women and newborns during 499 consecutively enrolled birth events and compared these with observed practices during 795 consecutively enrolled birth events after the introduction of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program. Twenty-nine essential practices that target the major causes of childbirth-related mortality, such as hand hygiene and uterotonic administration, were evaluated. The primary end point was the average rate of successful delivery of essential childbirth practices by health workers. Delivery of essential childbirth-related care practices at each birth event increased from an average of 10 of 29 practices at baseline (95%CI 9.4, 10.1) to an average of 25 of 29 practices afterwards (95%CI 24.6, 25.3; p<0.001). There was significant improvement in the delivery of 28 out of 29 individual practices. No adverse outcomes relating to the intervention occurred. Study limitations are the pre-post design, potential Hawthorne effect, and focus on processes of care versus health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program markedly improved delivery of essential safety practices by health workers. Future study will determine if this program can be implemented at scale and improve health outcomes.

Perspectives in quality: designing the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist.

The World Health Organization's Patient Safety Programme created an initiative to improve the safety of surgery around the world. In order to accomplish this goal the programme team developed a checklist with items that could and, if at all possible, should be practised in all settings where surgery takes place. There is little guidance in the literature regarding methods for creating a medical checklist. The airline industry, however, has more than 70 years of experience in developing and using checklists. The authors of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist drew lessons from the aviation experience to create a safety tool that supports essential clinical practice. In order to inform the methodology for development of future checklists in health care, we review how we applied lessons learned from the aviation experience in checklist development to the development of the Surgical Safety Checklist and also discuss the differences that exist between aviation and medicine that impact the use of checklists in health care.

A national analysis of the relationship between hospital volume, academic center status, and surgical outcomes for abdominal hysterectomy done for leiomyoma.

BACKGROUND: Volume-to-outcomes relationships have been established for high-risk surgical procedures. To determine whether hospital volume and academic center status affect surgical outcomes in a lower-risk procedure, morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for leiomyoma were evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: Administrative data from the National Inpatient Sample were used to conduct a retrospective analysis of 172,344 individuals who had primary diagnoses of leiomyomata (ICD-9 diagnosis codes of 218.x in the first 2 positions) and who underwent abdominal hysterectomy (ICD-9 procedure codes 68.4 in the first 2 positions) from 1999 to 2003. Comparison was made between teaching hospitals versus nonteaching hospitals and annual case volume in quintiles. Morbidity was considered to be any postoperative condition that is not an expected outcome of hysterectomy and defined as instances in which a patient suffered hemorrhage, ureteral injury, bladder injury, intestinal injury, wound dehiscence, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or required blood transfusion. RESULTS: A total of 37 deaths were observed. Mortality was not significantly related to hospital volume or academic medical center status. In contrast, morbidity was found to have a positive association with academic medical center status (odds ratio = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.45), although an inverse relationship between volume and morbidity was observed for extended length of stay (> 3 days) and blood transfusion outcomes in the first 3 (lowest) volume quintiles and for pulmonary embolism in the highest-volume quintile. No important association with volume was found for hemorrhage, ureteral injury, bladder injury, or intestinal injury. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike high-risk procedures, such as esophagectomy, pediatric cardiac surgery, and pancreaticoduodenectomy, mortality for abdominal hysterectomy done for benign indication does not improve with hospital volume or academic center status. The statistically significant positive association between academic medical center status and morbidity merits additional characterization to target areas for improvement.