RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasing demand for inpatient endoscopic services results in performing more non-emergent endoscopic cases after-hours, which poses risks to patient safety and negatively impacts patient and provider satisfaction. This study sought to quantify the existing state using quality improvement (QI) methodology, design targeted interventions, and determine their effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted an existing state evaluation through a process map, time-series study, and caseload analysis from 7/2017-12/2018. Using end-of-workday (EOW) as a proxy for patient/provider dissatisfaction and risk for patient safety events, we performed a prospective evaluation of a staged interdisciplinary multimodal intervention aimed to decrease the proportion of days with EOW after 7PM, decrease the proportion of cases begun after 5PM, and decrease EOW variability. The post-intervention period was 6/2019-2/2020. RESULTS: Based on existing state analyses, we implemented a series of targeted interventions: (1) provider workflow tips, (2) expedited transport for select patients, (3) pathway to reschedule appropriate cases to outpatient endoscopy, and (4) increased staffing for high caseload days through resource pooling. The proportion of days with EOW after 7PM decreased from 42.4% to 29.3% (caseload-adjusted odds ratio of 0.39, p< 0.001). Despite increased caseload, cases begun after 5PM decreased from 17.5% to 14.2% (OR 0.75, p = 0.009). EOW SD decreased from 2:20 hours to 1:36 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The multimodal intervention reduced days with EOW after 7PM and the proportion of cases begun after 5PM, despite increased caseload. This study shows how applying research methods to implement QI interventions successfully decreases late inpatient endoscopic cases.
RESUMEN
Sedation minimization and ventilator liberation protocols improve outcomes but are challenging to implement. We sought to demonstrate proof-of-concept and impact of an electronic application promoting sedation minimization and ventilator liberation. DESIGN: Multi-ICU proof-of-concept study and a single ICU before-after study. SETTING: University hospital ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: An automated application consisting of 1) a web-based dashboard with real-time data on spontaneous breathing trial readiness, sedation depth, sedative infusions, and nudges to wean sedation and ventilatory support and 2) text-message alerts once patients met criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial and spontaneous awakening trial. Pre-intervention, sedation minimization, and ventilator liberation were reviewed daily during a multidisciplinary huddle. Post-intervention, the dashboard was used during the multidisciplinary huddle, throughout the day by respiratory therapists, and text alerts were sent to bedside providers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 115 subjects in the proof-of-concept study. Spontaneous breathing trial alerts were accurate (98.3%), usually sent while patients were receiving mandatory ventilation (88.5%), and 61.9% of patients received concurrent spontaneous awakening trial alerts. We enrolled 457 subjects in the before-after study, 221 pre-intervention and 236 post-intervention. After implementation, patients were 28% more likely to be extubated (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.63; p = 0.042) and 31% more likely to be discharged from the ICU (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67; p = 0.027) at any time point. After implementation, the median duration of mechanical ventilation was 2.20 days (95% CI, 0.09-4.31 d; p = 0.042) shorter and the median ICU length of stay was 2.65 days (95% CI, 0.13-5.16 d; p = 0.040) shorter, compared with the expected durations without the application. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an electronic dashboard and alert system promoting sedation minimization and ventilator liberation was associated with reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay.
RESUMEN
Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.