RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Daily rounds in many pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) vary in quality, duration, and participation. We hypothesized that implementing structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds (SIBR®) would improve our rounding process. METHODS: This was a quality improvement initiative in a 25-bed multidisciplinary PICU in a tertiary children's hospital. Baseline data included rounding duration; participation of nurses, respiratory care practitioners (RCP), parents; and physician order read-back practices. Interventions were implementing pre-rounding huddles, changing the start of the rounding week, and instituting a SIBR model. All staff, consecutive patients and parents participated over 18 months. We used Mann-Whitney, z-test, and t-tests for statistical analysis with a significance level of 0.05. We tracked data with a statistical process control chart. RESULTS: Rounds participation increased for nurses (88% to 100%), RCPs (13% to 61%), and families (24% to 49%) (all p <0.001). Physician order read-back increased (41% to 79%) (p<0.001). The median length of stay (LOS) decreased from 2.1 to 1.9 days (p=0.004) with no changes in mortality or readmissions. The proportion of top responses from family surveys increased from 0.69 to 0.76 (p<0.001). PICU rounding duration (minutes/patient) decreased from 17.1 to 11.3. Most resident physicians felt SIBR positively impacted their education (70%), was more effective than rounds without structure (97%), and that family presence positively impacted learning (70%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a SIBR process in our PICU resulted in greater family and staff satisfaction, improved workflow and decreased rounding time by 34% without compromising education. LOS decreased significantly with no increases in mortality or readmissions.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: Infants of age less than one year have the highest mortality rate in pediatrics. The American Academy of Pediatrics published guidelines for palliative care in 2013; however, significant variation persists among local protocols addressing neonatal comfort care at the end-of-life (EOL). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate current neonatal EOL comfort care practices and clinician satisfaction across America. METHODS: After institutional review board approval (516005), an anonymous, electronic survey was sent to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. Members of the listserv include neonatologists, neonatal fellow physicians, neonatal nurses, and neonatal nurse practitioners from across America (U.S. and Canada). RESULTS: There were 346/3000 (11.5%) responses with wide geographic distribution and high levels of intensive care responding (46.1% Level IV, 50.9% Level III, 3.0% Level II). Nearly half (45.2%) reported that their primary institution did not have neonatal comfort care guidelines. Of those reporting institutional neonatal comfort care guidelines, 19.1% do not address pain symptom management. Most guidelines also do not address gastrointestinal distress, anxiety, or secretions. Thirty-nine percent of respondents stated that their institution did not address physician compassion fatigue. Overall, 91.8% of respondents felt that their institution would benefit from further education/training in neonatal EOL care. CONCLUSION: Across America, respondents confirmed significant variation and verified many institutions do not formally address neonatal EOL comfort care. Institutions with guidelines commonly appear to lack crucial areas of palliative care including patient symptom management and provider compassion fatigue. The overwhelming majority of respondents felt that their institutions would benefit from further neonatal EOL care training.
