Improving patient’s intensive care admission through multidisciplinary simulation-based crisis resource management:A qualitative study

Aim: To explore nurses' and physicians' experiences of simulation-based training in a crisis resource management quality improvement intervention on intensive care admission. Background: Quantitative studies have documented that staffs' non-technical skills are improved after simulation-based training in crisis resource management interventions. Experienced-based consensus led to development of a quality improvement intervention based on principles of crisis resource management and tested in simulation-based training to enhance staffs' non-technical skills. However, the impact on staff is unexplored, leaving little understanding of the relationship between simulation-based training in crisis resource management interventions and changes in non-technical skills. Design: A qualitative study with a hermeneutical approach. Methods: Data consisted of semi-structured interviews with physicians (n = 5) and nurses (n = 15) with maximum variation in work experience. Data were collected 3 months after implementation and analysed using thematic analysis. The COREQ guideline was applied. Results: The analysis revealed three themes: prioritising core clinical activities and patient centredness; transition into practice; and reflection on patient safety. These themes reflected staff's experiences of the intervention and implementation process, which evolved through prioritising core clinical activities that facilitated the transition into clinical practice and staff's reflection on patient safety. Conclusions: Prioritising core clinical activities were facilitated by clear communication, predefined roles and better teamwork. Transition into practice stimulated professional growth through feedback. Reflection on patient safety created a new understanding on how a new structure of intensive care admission could be implemented. Collectively, this indicated a joint understanding of admissions. Implications for Practice: Findings enables health care professionals to understand how the intervention can contribute to improve quality of care in management of intensive care admission. Improving non-technical skills are vital in high-quality admissions, which supported a structured process and a collaborative professional standard of admissions. Patient and Public Contribution: None.</p

Clinical assessment as a part of an early warning score-a Danish cluster-randomised, multicentre study of an individual early warning score

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of Early Warning Scores (EWSs) is undocumented. Nursing staff's clinical assessment might improve the prediction of outcome and allow more efficient use of resources. We aimed to investigate whether the combination of clinical assessment and EWS would reduce the number of routine measurements without increasing mortality.METHODS: We did a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority study at eight hospitals in Denmark. Patients aged 18 years or older, admitted for more than 24 h were included. Admissions to paediatric or obstetric wards were excluded. The participating hospitals were randomly assigned 1:1 to start as either intervention or control with subsequent crossover. Primary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality (non-inferiority margin=0·5%) and average number of EWS per day per patient. The intervention was implementation of the Individual EWS (I-EWS), in which nursing staff can adjust the calculated score on the basis of their clinical assessment of the patient. I-EWS was compared with the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03690128 and is complete.FINDINGS: Unique admissions longer than 24 h were included from Oct 15, 2018 to Sept 30, 2019. Of 90 964 patients assessed, n=46 470 were assigned to the I-EWS group and n=44 494 to the NEWS group. Mortality within 30 days was 4·6% for the I-EWS group, and 4·3% for the NEWS group (adjusted odds ratio 1·05 [95% CI 0·99-1·12], p=0·12). In subgroup analyses I-EWS showed increased 30-day mortality for hospitals that did I-EWS in fall-winter, which was probably due to seasonality, and within patients admitted in a surgical specialty. Overall risk difference was 0·22% (95% CI -0·04 to 0·48) meaning that the non-inferiority criteria were met. The average number of scorings per patient per day was reduced from 3·14 to 3·10 (ie, a relative reduction of 0·64% [95% CI -0·16 to -1·11], p=0·0084) in the I-EWS group.INTERPRETATION: Including clinical assessment in I-EWS was feasible and overall non-inferior to the widely implemented NEWS in terms of all-cause mortality at 30 days, and the number of routine measurements was minimally reduced. However I-EWS should be used with caution in surgical patients.FUNDING: Capital Region Research Foundation, Gangsted Foundation, Candys Foundation, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital Research Foundation, Laerdal Foundation, and The Foundation of Director Boennelycke and wife.</p

Adjusting Early Warning Score by clinical assessment:A study protocol for a Danish cluster-randomised, multicentre study of an Individual Early Warning Score (I-EWS)

INTRODUCTION: Track and trigger systems (TTSs) based on vital signs are implemented in hospitals worldwide to identify patients with clinical deterioration. TTSs may provide prognostic information but do not actively include clinical assessment, and their impact on severe adverse events remain uncertain. The demand for prospective, multicentre studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of TTSs has grown the last decade. Individual Early Warning Score (I-EWS) is a newly developed TTS with an aggregated score based on vital signs that can be adjusted according to the clinical assessment of the patient. The objective is to compare I-EWS with the existing National Early Warning Score (NEWS) algorithm regarding clinical outcomes and use of resources.METHOD AND ANALYSIS: In a prospective, multicentre, cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority study. Eight hospitals are randomised to use either NEWS in combination with the Capital Region of Denmark NEWS Override System (CROS) or implement I-EWS for 6.5 months, followed by a crossover. Based on their clinical assessment, the nursing staff can adjust the aggregated score with a maximum of -4 or +6 points. We expect to include 150 000 unique patients. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 30 days. Coprimary endpoint is the average number of times per day a patient is NEWS/I-EWS-scored, and secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at 48 hours and at 7 days as well as length of stay.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was presented for the Regional Ethics committee who decided that no formal approval was needed according to Danish law (J.no. 1701733). The I-EWS study is a large prospective, randomised multicentre study that investigates the effect of integrating a clinical assessment performed by the nursing staff in a TTS, in a head-to-head comparison with the internationally used NEWS with the opportunity to use CROS.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03690128.</p

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Data from: Experiences with Global Trigger Tool reviews in five Danish hospitals – an implementation study

Objectives: To describe experiences with the implementation of global trigger tool (GTT) reviews in five Danish hospitals and to suggest ways to improve the performance of GTT review teams. Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting: The measurement and monitoring of harms are crucial to campaigns to improve the safety of patients. Increasingly, teams use the GTT to review patient records and measure harms in English and non-English-speaking countries. Meanwhile, it is not clear as to how the method performs in such diverse settings. Participants: Review teams from five Danish pilot hospitals of the national Danish Safer Hospital Programme. Primary and secondary outcome measures: We collected harm rates, background and anecdotal information and reported patient safety incidents (PSIs) from five pilot hospitals currently participating in the Danish Safer Hospital Programme. Experienced reviewers categorised harms by type. We plotted harm rates as run-charts and applied rules for the detection of patterns of non-random variation. Results: The hospitals differed in size but had similar patient populations and activity. PSIs varied between 3 and 12 per 1000 patient-days. The average harm rate for all hospitals was 60 per 1000 patient-days ranging from 34 to 84. The percentage of harmed patients was 25 and ranged from 18 to 33. Overall, 96% of harms were temporary. Infections, pressure ulcers procedure-related and gastrointestinal problems were common. Teams reported differences in training and review procedures such as the role of the secondary reviewer. Conclusions: We found substantial variation in harm rates. Differences in training, review procedures and documentation in patient records probably contributed to these variations. Training reviewers as teams, specifying the roles of the different reviewers, training records and a database for findings of reviews may improve the application of the GTT

Experiences with global trigger tool reviews in five Danish hospitals:an implementation study

OBJECTIVES: To describe experiences with the implementation of global trigger tool (GTT) reviews in five Danish hospitals and to suggest ways to improve the performance of GTT review teams. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The measurement and monitoring of harms are crucial to campaigns to improve the safety of patients. Increasingly, teams use the GTT to review patient records and measure harms in English and non-English-speaking countries. Meanwhile, it is not clear as to how the method performs in such diverse settings. PARTICIPANTS: Review teams from five Danish pilot hospitals of the national Danish Safer Hospital Programme. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We collected harm rates, background and anecdotal information and reported patient safety incidents (PSIs) from five pilot hospitals currently participating in the Danish Safer Hospital Programme. Experienced reviewers categorised harms by type. We plotted harm rates as run-charts and applied rules for the detection of patterns of non-random variation. RESULTS: The hospitals differed in size but had similar patient populations and activity. PSIs varied between 3 and 12 per 1000 patient-days. The average harm rate for all hospitals was 60 per 1000 patient-days ranging from 34 to 84. The percentage of harmed patients was 25 and ranged from 18 to 33. Overall, 96% of harms were temporary. Infections, pressure ulcers procedure-related and gastrointestinal problems were common. Teams reported differences in training and review procedures such as the role of the secondary reviewer. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variation in harm rates. Differences in training, review procedures and documentation in patient records probably contributed to these variations. Training reviewers as teams, specifying the roles of the different reviewers, training records and a database for findings of reviews may improve the application of the GTT

Experiences with Global Trigger Tool reviews in Danish hospitals

MSExcel spreadsheet with data from participating hospitals. File names are in Danish

Test-Retest Reliability of an Experienced Global Trigger Tool Review Team

OBJECTIVES: During a comprehensive patient safety program at a 550-bed regional hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark, we observed an unexpected and unexplained doubling of the median patient harm rate from 56 to 109 harms per 1000 patient days measured by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Meanwhile, other measures of patient safety, including hospital standardized mortality ratio, were stable or improving. Moreover, the review team was very experienced and stable during this period. Thus, we hypothesized that the increase in harm rate was not a true reflection of increased risk of patient harm but the result of the team getting better at identifying harms during GTT reviews.METHODS: We examined the ability of the GTT review team to reproduce the rate of harm of two separate periods in the same hospital: period 1 (January-June 2010) and period 2 (October 2011-March 2012). For each period, we examined two samples: the original sample that was drawn and used for the ongoing monitoring of harm at the hospital during the safety campaign and a second that we drew and analyzed for this study.RESULTS: We found increased harm rates both between review 1 and review 2 and between period 1 and period 2. The increase was solely in category E, minor temporary harm.CONCLUSIONS: The very experienced GTT team could not reproduce harm rates found in earlier reviews. We conclude that GTT in its present form is not a reliable measure of harm rate over time.</p