The key incident monitoring and management system - history and role in quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: The determination of reliable, practical Quality Indicators (QIs) from presentation of the patient with a pathology request form through to the clinician receiving the report (the Total Testing Process or TTP) is a key step in identifying areas where improvement is necessary in laboratories. METHODS: The Australasian QIs programme Key Incident Monitoring and Management System (KIMMS) began in 2008. It records incidents (process defects) and episodes (occasions at which incidents may occur) to calculate incident rates. KIMMS also uses the Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assign quantified risk to each incident type. The system defines risk as incident frequency multiplied by both a harm rating (on a 1-10 scale) and detection difficulty score (also a 1-10 scale). RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2016, laboratories participating rose from 22 to 69. Episodes rose from 13.2 to 43.4 million; incidents rose from 114,082 to 756,432. We attribute the rise in incident rate from 0.86% to 1.75% to increased monitoring. Haemolysis shows the highest incidence (22.6% of total incidents) and the highest risk (26.68% of total risk). "Sample is suspected to be from the wrong patient" has the second lowest frequency, but receives the highest harm rating (10/10) and detection difficulty score (10/10), so it is calculated to be the 8th highest risk (2.92%). Similarly, retracted (incorrect) reports QI has the 10th highest frequency (3.9%) but the harm/difficulty calculation confers the second highest risk (11.17%). CONCLUSIONS: TTP incident rates are generally low (less than 2% of observed episodes), however, incident risks, their frequencies multiplied by both ratings of harm and discovery difficulty scores, concentrate improvement attention and resources on the monitored incident types most important to manage.

Prevenção de tromboembolismo venoso em hospital com perfil oncológico: como melhorá-la? / How can prevention of venous thromboembolism be improved in a hospital with an oncological profile?

Resumo Contexto Complicações do tromboembolismo venoso são encontradas frequentemente em pacientes internados, tanto em condições clínicas quanto em pós-operatórios. Objetivo Verificar a quimioprofilaxia utilizada para tromboembolismo venoso em pacientes oncológicos internados, antes e após a realização de um programa de esclarecimento da sua importância. Métodos Estudo de corte transversal realizado em três momentos distintos: inicialmente antes do programa de conscientização da importância da profilaxia do tromboembolismo venoso, durante o período em que foi realizada e um ano após a etapa anterior. Para fins estatísticos, os pacientes foram divididos em alto risco e baixo risco, e estratificados quanto a erro na quimioprofilaxia em: precisavam, mas não fizeram profilaxia; não precisavam, mas fizeram profilaxia; fizeram profilaxia não padronizada; e não podiam, mas fizeram profilaxia. Resultados Foram avaliados 399 pacientes internados, sendo 56 pacientes antes do início do programa de conscientização, 255 durante o programa e 88 após um ano. Antes da realização da semana de conscientização, apenas 35,7% dos pacientes estavam recebendo a quimioprofilaxia adequada; após a semana de conscientização, houve um aumento do número de prescrições corretas, que passou para 63,9% (p < 0,001). Após um ano sem as aulas de conscientização, a manutenção da quimioprofilaxia não foi tão eficaz, com uma tendência ao aumento do número de profilaxias incorretas (p = 0,081). Conclusão A quimioprofilaxia é utilizada em uma porcentagem muito pequena nos pacientes internados, sendo necessários programas de esclarecimento de sua importância na prevenção do tromboembolismo venoso e a realização de monitoramento contínuo para auxiliar na sua prescrição.

Abstract Background Complications of venous thromboembolism are common among both medical and surgical hospital patients. Objective To identify what, if any, pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism was given to cancer patients in hospital before and after implementation of a program to raise awareness of its importance. Methods This was a cross-sectional study conducted in three phases at distinct times: before a program to raise awareness of the importance of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism was implemented, during years when the program was being run, and 1 year after the end of the program. For statistical analysis, patients were classified as high risk or no risk and categorized on the basis of erroneous pharmacological prophylaxis, as follows: “needed prophylaxis, but were not given it”; “did not need prophylaxis, but were given it”; “were given nonstandard prophylaxis”; or “should not have been given prophylaxis, but were given it”. Results A total of 399 hospital patients were assessed: 56 before the awareness-raising program, 255 during the program and 88 1 year after the program was last run. Before any awareness-raising weeks, just 35.7% of the patients were being given the correct pharmacological prophylaxis; after awareness-raising weeks, the proportion of correct prescriptions increased to 63.9% (p < 0.001). After one year with no awareness-raising efforts, maintenance of pharmacological prophylaxis was no longer as effective, and there was a trend for the proportion of incorrect prophylaxis to increase (p = 0.081). Conclusions Pharmacological prophylaxis is given to a very small percentage of patients in hospital and programs are needed to raise awareness of its importance in the prevention of venous thromboembolism and continuous monitoring is needed to facilitate prescriptions.

Twenty-five years of accomplishments of the College of American Pathologists Q-probes program for clinical pathology.

CONTEXT: During the past 25 years, the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) Q-Probes program has been available as a subscription program to teach laboratorians how to improve the quality of clinical laboratory services. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accomplishments of the CAP Q-Probes program. DESIGN: We reviewed Q-Probes participant information, study data and conclusions, author information, and program accomplishments. RESULTS: During this time 117 Q-Probes clinical pathology studies were conducted by 54 authors and coauthors, 42,899 laboratories enrolled from 24 countries, 98 peer-reviewed publications occurred and were cited more than 1600 times, and the studies were featured 59 times in CAP Today. The most frequent studies (19) focused on turnaround times for results or products at specific locations (emergency department, operating room, inpatients, outpatients), specific diseases (acute myocardial infarction, urinary tract), availability for specific events such as morning rounds or surgery, a specific result (positive blood cultures), and a method on how to use data for improvement (stat test outliers). Percentile ranking of study participants with better performance provided benchmarks for each study with attributes statistically defined that influenced improved performance. Other programs, such as an ongoing quality improvement program (Q-Tracks), a laboratory competency assessment program, a pathologist certification program, and an ongoing physician practice evaluation program (Evalumetrics), have been developed from Q-Probes studies. CONCLUSIONS: The CAP's Q-Probes program has made significant contributions to the medical literature and has developed a worldwide reputation for improving the quality of clinical pathology services worldwide.

Fifteen years' experience of a College of American Pathologists program for continuous monitoring and improvement.

CONTEXT: The Q-Tracks program, created in 1999, is a quality monitoring subscription service offered by the College of American Pathologists. OBJECTIVE: To establish benchmarks in quality metrics, monitor changes in performance over time, and identify practice characteristics associated with better performance. DESIGN: The Q-Tracks program provides ongoing study of multiple metrics offered in most laboratory disciplines. The design enables measuring the effects of process changes and comparisons with other participating laboratories. Each laboratory Q-Tracks monitor has a primary quality indicator and additional secondary indicators. RESULTS: To date, 19 Q-Tracks monitors have been offered, with 12 currently active monitors. Q-Tracks are primarily conducted in hospital-based laboratories in the United States, Canada, and 21 other countries. Common to most Q-Tracks monitors is a demonstration of performance improvement by subscribers with long-term participation. This finding was seen in preanalytic, turnaround time, and postanalytic measures. Q-Tracks monitors contribute to the overall demonstration and improvement of laboratory and hospital quality because they address core quality measures for the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program and multiple Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goals. CONCLUSIONS: The Q-Tracks program has established multiple benchmarks in most disciplines of the laboratory and has demonstrated significant performance improvement in benchmarks and individual laboratories over time.

The legacy of a Boston curmudgeon.

Ernest Amory Codman developed the End-Results System that has given rise to many quality tools and registries that surgeons are familiar with today. Although not appreciated by colleagues for his revolutionary concepts, he has now been recognized as a visionary and developer of many of the concepts that we equate with good surgical care and follow-up.

Quality of haemophilia care in The Netherlands: new standards for optimal care.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the first formal haemophilia comprehensive care centre was established in 1964, and Dutch haemophilia doctors have been organised since 1972. Although several steps were taken to centralise haemophilia care and maintain quality of care, treatment was still delivered in many hospitals, and formal criteria for haemophilia treatment centres as well as a national haemophilia registry were lacking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In collaboration with patients and other stakeholders, Dutch haemophilia doctors have undertaken a formal process to draft new quality standards for the haemophilia treatment centres. First a project group including doctors, nurses, patients and the institute for harmonisation of quality standards undertook a literature study on quality standards and performed explorative visits to several haemophilia treatment centres in the Netherlands. Afterwards concept standards were defined and validated in two treatment centres. Next, the concept standards were evaluated by haemophilia doctors, patients, health insurance representatives and regulators. Finally, the final version of the standards of care was approved by Central body of Experts on quality standards in clinical care and the Dutch Ministry of Health. RESULTS: A team of expert auditors have been trained and, together with an independent auditor, will perform audits in haemophilia centres applying for formal certification. Concomitantly, a national registry for haemophilia and allied disorders is being set up. DISCUSSION: It is expected that these processes will lead to further concentration and improved quality of haemophilia care in the Netherlands.

[The concept of quality of life in medicine: its history and current relevance]. / Das Konzept der Lebensqualität in der Medizin--Entwicklung und heutiger Stellenwert.

This paper attempts to review 40 years of quality-of-life research. The increasing recognition of the topic is obvious from the number of publications and its representation in academic discussions. Despite a rather weak theoretical foundation, methods of quality-of-life assessment have been developed successfully. Both the number and the quality of assessment tools have increased over the years so that there is now a broad spectrum of instruments for adults and children available, which is used from epidemiological studies to health services research, and especially in quality assurance and comparative benchmarking. Assessment is still underrepresented in clinical trials, which is why only few meta-analyses and reviews are available. Also, implementation of results in recommendations for treatment and in guidelines has just started. Implications for clinical practice also relate to the patient orientation in the physician-patient communication. A future perspective is the widespread use of available instruments, provided that relevant information is gained, which depends on the study design as well as the interpretation and dissemination of results. Consequences for the healthcare systems are expected if improvements in quality of life can be attributed to benefits of treatment and surrounding services.