Ensuring safety of patients receiving sedation for procedures: evaluation of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In 1995 The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore convened an interdisciplinary task force to evaluate sedation practices, create a comprehensive set of sedation guidelines, and evaluate patient safety outcomes following guideline implementation. METHODOLOGY: Baseline data were collected on all procedures in which sedation was administered by a nonanesthesiologist for a 6-month period, using scanning technology to automate data entry. Sedation practices were reviewed, and four critical events were examined: unresponsiveness, obstructed airway, airway placement, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In 1998 data collection procedures were repeated to evaluate the impact of the guidelines on sedation practices and patient safety outcomes. RESULTS: In 1995 sedation practices varied, and one or more critical events occurred in 45 (1.4%) of 3,255 procedures. Steps taken included development and dissemination of a clinical sedation guideline, including monitoring criteria to guide nonanesthesiologists, and evaluation planning. In 1998 sedation practices were more consistent. One or more critical events occurred in 50 (1.6%) of 3,134 procedures, representing a small increase in critical events from 1995. More events of unresponsiveness were identified, and no event required CPR. Although not statistically significant, this trend suggests that critical events were being identified earlier, preventing patients from progressing to a more serious event requiring CPR. Steps taken included further refinement of clinical practice guidelines and establishment of ongoing monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of sedation practices is a complex and resource-intensive activity, requiring ongoing oversight and monitoring. Commitment from medical staff, nursing staff, and administration is essential to successful implementation of sedation guidelines.

Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (POCT) can provide rapid test results, but its impact on patient care is not well documented. We investigated the ability of POCT to decrease inpatient and outpatient waiting times for cardiovascular procedures. METHODS: We prospectively studied, over a 7-month period, 216 patients requiring diagnostic laboratory testing for coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time) and/or renal function (urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, and potassium) before elective invasive cardiac and radiologic procedures. Overall patient management and workflow were examined in the initial phase. In phase 2, we implemented POCT but utilized central laboratory results for patient management. In phase 3, therapeutic decisions were based on POCT results. The final phase, phase 4, sought to optimize workflow around the availability of POCT. Patient wait and timing of phlebotomy, availability of laboratory results, and therapeutic action were monitored. Split sampling allowed comparability of POCT and central laboratory results throughout the study. RESULTS: In phase 1, 44% of central laboratory results were not available before the scheduled time for procedure (n = 135). Mean waiting times (arrival to procedure) were 188 +/- 54 min for patients who needed renal testing (phase 2; n = 14) and 171 +/- 76 min for those needing coagulation testing (n = 24). For patients needing renal testing, POCT decreased patient wait times (phases 3 and 4 combined, 141 +/- 52 min; n = 18; P = 0.02). For patients needing coagulation testing, wait times improved only when systematic changes were made in workflow (phase 4, 109 +/- 41 min; n = 12; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although POCT has the potential to provide beneficial patient outcomes, merely moving testing from a central laboratory to the medical unit does not guarantee improved outcomes. Systematic changes in patient management may be required.