Management Strategies to Effect Change in Intensive Care Units: Lessons from the World of Business. Part I. Targeting Quality Improvement Initiatives

The business community has developed strategies to ensure the quality of the goods or services they produce and to improve the management of multidisciplinary work teams. With modification, many of these techniques can be imported into intensive care units (ICUs) to improve clinical operations and patient safety. In Part I of a three-part ATS Seminar series, we argue for adopting business management strategies in ICUs and set forth strategies for targeting selected quality improvement initiatives. These tools are relevant to health care today as focus is placed on limiting low-value care and measuring, reporting, and improving quality. In the ICU, the complexity of illness and the need to standardize processes make these tools even more appealing. Herein, we highlight four techniques to help prioritize initiatives. First, the "80/20 rule" mandates focus on the few (20%) interventions likely to drive the majority (80%) of improvement. Second, benchmarking--a process of comparison with peer units or institutions--is essential to identifying areas of strength and weakness. Third, root cause analyses, in which structured retrospective reviews of negative events are performed, can be used to identify and fix systems errors. Finally, failure mode and effects analysis--a process aimed at prospectively identifying potential sources of error--allows for systems fixes to be instituted in advance to prevent negative outcomes. These techniques originated in fields other than health care, yet adoption has and can help ICU managers prioritize issues for quality improvement

Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose Intensive care clinicians play a central role in the co-ordination and treatment of patients that develop life-threatening emergencies. This review evaluates the effect of debriefing after life-threatening emergencies and considers the implications for intensive care training and practice. Methods Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, citation tracking, and contact with subject specialists. Studies evaluating the effect of debriefing after life-threatening emergencies on clinician performance (process) and/or patient outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was assessed and summarised using the GRADE system. Results The search identified 2,720 studies. After detailed review, 27 studies were included of which 20 supported the use of debriefing. Debriefing was viewed positively (n = 3), improved learning (n = 1), enhanced non-technical performance (n = 4) and technical performance (n = 16), and improved patient outcomes (n = 2). Four cardiac arrest studies were suitable for meta-analysis. This found evidence of improved resuscitation process outcomes [compression fraction (mean difference 6.80, 95 % CI 4.19–9.40, p < 0.001)] and short-term patient outcome [return of spontaneous circulation (OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.01–2.13, p = 0.05)]. There was no effect on survival to hospital discharge (OR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.38–1.67, p = 0.55). Conclusions This review supports the use of structured debriefing as an educational strategy to improve clinician knowledge and skill acquisition and implementation of those skills in practice. However, the effect of debriefing on long-term patient outcomes is uncertain. There remains a need for further high-quality research, which seeks to identify the optimal method for debriefing delivery and effect on patient outcomes