Use of quality improvement methods to enhance implementation of a mental health care bundle in a pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: We used quality improvement methods to implement a care bundle for children presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) with mental health concerns. A bundle novelty was that it included an option for assessment in a partnered clinic, not in the ED, to families of children assessed as having no medical or safety concerns. The primary aim of this study was to establish successful implementation of the bundle prior to studying its impact. METHODS: The bundle included the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions to standardize risk assessment at triage, the HEADS-ED (Home, Education, Activities/Peers, Drug/Alcohol, Suicidality, Emotions/Behavior, Discharge Resources) tool for brief, scored mental health assessments, and offering an urgent appointment within 96 h for low-risk children as an alternative to ED-based assessment or as a follow-up option for patients assessed in the ED. We developed aims, driver diagrams, and outcome measures for each bundle element. Each element was introduced with small tests of change using iterative plan-do-study-act cycles. Run charts were used to determine successful completion of aims. RESULTS: Rules for special cause were met through detection of shifts in performance 5 months after bundle implementation for the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions and HEADS-ED. These bundle elements were consistently used with ≥ 80% of eligible patients, representing aim achievement. During the 6 months of providing urgent appointments, 89.3% of 159 referred families received an appointment within 96 h. CONCLUSIONS: Using quality improvement methods, we were able to successfully ensure reliable implementation of a new care bundle for pediatric patients presenting to the ED with mental health concerns and allow eligible low-risk patients to receive full assessments in a partnered clinic instead of the ED.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Nous avons utilisé des méthodes d'amélioration de la qualité pour mettre en œuvre un ensemble de soins (bundle) pour les enfants qui se présentent à un service d'urgence pédiatrique avec des problèmes de santé mentale. Une nouveauté de ce bundle était qu'il comprenait une option d'évaluation dans une clinique partenaire, et non au service des urgences, pour les familles d'enfants évalués comme n'ayant aucun problème médical ou de sécurité. L'objectif premier de cette étude était d'assurer la réussite de la mise en œuvre du bundle avant d'en étudier l'impact. MéTHODES: Le bundle comprenait le questionnaire Ask Suicide-Screening Questions pour normaliser l'évaluation du risque au triage, l'outil HEADS-ED (Home, Education, Activities/Peers, Drug/Alcohol, Suicidality, Emotions/Behavior, Discharge Resources) pour des évaluations brèves et notées de la santé mentale, et l'offre d'un rendez-vous urgent dans les 96 heures pour les enfants à faible risque comme alternative à l'évaluation à l'urgence ou comme option de suivi pour les patients évalués à l'urgence. Nous avons élaboré des objectifs, des diagrammes de pilotage et des mesures de résultats pour chaque élément du bundle. Chaque élément a été introduit avec de petits tests de changement en utilisant des cycles itératifs planifier-faire-étudier-agir. Des diagrammes de progression ont été utilisés pour déterminer la réussite des objectifs. RéSULTATS: Les règles relatives à la cause spéciale ont été respectées grâce à la détection de changements dans les performances 5 mois après la mise en œuvre de bundle pour les questions de dépistage du suicide et HEADS-ED. Ces bundles ont été systématiquement utilisés avec plus de 80 % des patients éligibles, ce qui représente un objectif atteint. Au cours des six mois pendant lesquels des rendez-vous urgents ont été proposés, 89,3 % des 159 familles référées ont obtenu un rendez-vous dans les 96 heures. CONCLUSIONS: En utilisant des méthodes d'amélioration de la qualité, nous avons réussi à assurer une mise en œuvre fiable d'un nouveau bundle de soin pour les patients pédiatriques se présentant aux urgences avec des problèmes de santé mentale et à permettre aux patients à faible risque éligibles de recevoir des évaluations complètes dans une clinique partenaire plutôt qu'aux urgences.

Introducing an innovative model of acute paediatric mental health and addictions care to paediatric emergency departments: a protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Children and youth with mental health and addiction crises are a vulnerable patient group that often are brought to the hospital for emergency department care. We propose to evaluate the effect of a novel, acute care bundle that standardises a patient-centred approach to care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two paediatric emergency departments in Alberta, Canada are involved in this prospective, pragmatic, 29-month interventional quasi-experimental study. The acute care bundle comprises three components, applied when appropriate: (1) assessing self-harm risk at triage using the Ask Suicide-Screening Questionnaire (ASQ) to standardise the questions administered, enabling risk stratification; (2) use of the HEADS-ED (Home, Education, Activities/peers, Drug/alcohol, Suicidality, Emotions and behaviour, Discharge Resources) to focus mental health evaluations for those who screen high risk on the ASQ; and (3) implementation of a Choice And Partnership Approach to enable shared decision making in care following the emergency department visit. The overarching goal is to deliver the right care at the right place and time for the patients. The study design involves a longitudinal collection of data 12 months before and after the introduction of the bundle and the use of quality improvement strategies such as Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles during a 5-month run-in period to test and implement changes. The primary study end-point is child/youth well-being 1 month after the emergency department visit. Secondary outcomes include family functioning, child/youth well-being at 3 and 6 months, satisfaction with emergency department care, and health system outcomes (hospital admissions, length of emergency department stays, emergency department revisits). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov and has received ethics and operational approvals from study sites. The results of the study will be reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. Results will be shared broadly with key policy and decision makers and disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04292379.

The most effective strategy for recruiting a pregnancy cohort: a tale of two cities.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women were recruited into the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) study in two cities in Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton. In Calgary, a larger proportion of women obtain obstetrical care from family physicians than from obstetricians; otherwise the cities have similar characteristics. Despite similarities of the cities, the recruitment success was very different. The purpose of this paper is to describe recruitment strategies, determine which were most successful and discuss reasons for the different success rates between the two cities. METHODS: Recruitment methods in both cities involved approaching pregnant women (< 27 weeks gestation) through the waiting rooms of physician offices, distributing posters and pamphlets, word of mouth, media, and the Internet. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and November 2010, 1,200 participants were recruited, 86% (1,028/1,200) from Calgary and 14% (172/1,200) from Edmonton, two cities with similar demographics. The most effective strategy overall involved face-to-face recruitment through clinics in physician and ultrasound offices with access to a large volume of women in early pregnancy. This method was most economical when clinic staff received an honorarium to discuss the study with patients and forward contact information to the research team. CONCLUSION: Recruiting a pregnancy cohort face-to-face through physician offices was the most effective method in both cities and a new critically important finding is that employing this method is only feasible in large volume maternity clinics. The proportion of family physicians providing antenatal and post-natal care may impact recruitment success and should be studied further.