ABSTRACT
Payers, providers, and patients increasingly recognize the importance of quality and safety in health care. Academic Departments of Medicine can advance quality and safety given the large populations they serve and the broad spectrum of diseases they treat. However, there are only few detailed examples of how quality and safety can be organized. This article describes a practical model at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Department of Medicine and details its structure and operation within a large academic health system. It is based on a fractal model that integrates multiple smaller units similar in structure (composition of faculty/staff), process (use of similar tools), and approach (using a common framework to address issues). This organization stresses local, multidisciplinary leadership, facilitates horizontal connections for peer learning, and maintains vertical connections for broader accountability.
Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration , Patient Safety/standards , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Academic Medical Centers/standards , Health Personnel/organization & administration , Humans , Inservice Training/organization & administration , Leadership , Organizational Culture , Patient Satisfaction , Quality Improvement/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Risk Assessment , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Results of a quality-improvement project to enhance safeguards against "wrong-pen-to-patient" insulin pen errors by permitting secure bedside storage of insulin pens are reported. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled evaluation was conducted at an academic medical center to assess adherence with institutional policy on insulin pen storage before and after implementation of a revised policy allowing pen storage in locking boxes in patient rooms. In phase 1 of the study, baseline data on policy adherence were captured for 8 patient care units (4 designated as intervention units and 4 designated as control units). In phase 2, policy adherence was assessed through direct observation during weekly audits after lock boxes were installed on intervention units and education on proper insulin pen storage was provided to nurses in all 8 units. RESULTS: Phase 1 rates of adherence to insulin pen storage policy were 59% in the intervention units and 49% in the control units (p = 0.56). During phase 2, there was no significant change from baseline in control unit adherence (67%, p = 0.26), but adherence in intervention units improved significantly, to 89% (p = 0.005). Common types of observed nonadherence included pens being unsecured in patient rooms or nurses' pockets or left in patient-specific medication drawers after patient discharge. CONCLUSION: An institutional policy change permitting secure storage of insulin pens close to the point of care, paired with nurse education, increased adherence more than education alone.
