A trigger tool to identify adverse events in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has tested and taught use of a variety of trigger tools, including those for adverse medication events, neonatal intensive care events, and a global trigger tool for measuring all event categories in a hospital. The trigger tools have evolved as a complimentary adjunct to voluntary reporting. The Trigger Tool technique was used to identify the rate of occurrence of adverse events in the intensive care unit (ICU), and a subset of ICUs described those events in detail. METHODS: Sixty-two ICUs in 54 hospitals (both academic and community) engaged in IHI critical care collaboratives between 2001 and late 2004. Charts were selected using a random sampling technique and reviewed using a two-stage process. RESULTS: The prevalence of adverse events observed on 12,074 ICU admissions was 11.3 adverse events/100 patient days. For a subset of 1,294 charts from 13 ICUs which were reviewed in detail, 1,450 adverse events were identified, for a prevalence of 16.4 events/100 ICU days. Fifty-five percent of the charts in this subset contained at least one adverse event. DISCUSSION: The Trigger Tool methodology is a practical approach to enhance detection of adverse events in ICU patients. Evaluation of these adverse events can be used to direct resource use for improvement work. The measurement of these sampled chart reviews can also be used to follow the impact of the change strategies on the occurrence of adverse events within a local ICU.

Best-practice protocols: implementing a rapid response system of care.

Rapid response teams provide a method for sending experts to the bedside to assist with patient evaluation and treatment before clinical deterioration progresses to cardiac arrest.

Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: A "bundle" of ventilator care processes (peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, elevation of the head of the bed, and a sedation vacation), which may also reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rates, can serve as a focus for improvement strategies in intensive care units (ICUs). Between July 2002 and January 2004, teams of critical care clinicians from 61 health care organizations participated in a collaborative on improving care in the ICU. METHODS: ICU team members posted data monthly on a Web-based extranet and submitted narrative descriptions describing the changes tested and the strategies implemented. RESULTS: For the 35 units that consistently collected data on ventilator bundle element adherence and VAP rates, an average 44.5% reduction of VAP was observed. DISCUSSION: The goal-oriented nature of the bundle appears to demand development of the teamwork necessary to improve reliability. The observations seem sufficiently robust to support implementing the ventilator bundles to provide a focus for additional change in ICUs.

Improving communication in the ICU using daily goals.

BACKGROUND: Clear communication is imperative if teams in any industry expect to make improvements. An estimated 85% of errors across industries result from communication failures. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of communication during patient care rounds in the intensive care unit (ICU) using a daily goals form. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective cohort study in collaboration with the Volunteer Hospital Association (VHA), Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), and Johns Hopkins Hospital's (JHH) 16-bed surgical oncology ICU. All patients admitted to the ICU were eligible. Main outcome variables were ICU length of stay (LOS) and percent of ICU residents and nurses who understood the goals of care for patients in the ICU. Baseline measurements were compared with measurements of understanding after implementation of a daily goals form. RESULTS: At baseline, less than 10% of residents and nurses understood the goals of care for the day. After implementing the daily goals form, greater than 95% of nurses and residents understood the goals of care for the day. After implementation of the daily goals form, ICU LOS decreased from a mean of 2.2 days to 1.1 days. CONCLUSION: Implementing the daily goals form resulted in a significant improvement in the percent of residents and nurses who understood the goals of care for the day and a reduction in ICU LOS. The use of the daily goals form has broad applicability in acute care medicine.

Patient Safety Leadership WalkRounds.

BACKGROUND: In the WalkRounds concept, a core group, which includes the senior executives and/or vice presidents, conducts weekly visits to different areas of the hospital. The group, joined by one or two nurses in the area and other available staff, asks specific questions about adverse events or near misses and about the factors or systems issues that led to these events. ANALYSIS OF EVENTS: Events in the Walkrounds are entered into a database and classified according to the contributing factors. The data are aggregated by contributing factors and priority scores to highlight the root issues. The priority scores are used to determine QI pilots and make best use of limited resources. Executives are surveyed quarterly about actions they have taken as a direct result of WalkRounds and are asked what they have learned from the rounds. RESULTS: As of September 2002, 47 Patient Safety Leadership WalkRounds visited a total of 48 different areas of the hospital, with 432 individual comments. DISCUSSION: The WalkRounds require not only knowledgeable and invested senior leadership but also a well-organized support structure. Quality and safety personnel are needed to collect data and maintain a database of confidential information, evaluate the data from a systems approach, and delineate systems-based actions to improve care delivery. Comments of frontline clinicians and executives suggested that WalkRounds helps educate leadership and frontline staff in patient safety concepts and will lead to cultural changes, as manifested in more open discussion of adverse events and an improved rate of safety-based changes.