The impact of open versus closed format ICU admission practices on the outcome of high risk surgical patients: a cohort analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the year 2000, the organizational structure of the ICU in the Zaandam Medical Centre (ZMC) changed from an open to a closed format ICU. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of this organizational change on outcome in high risk surgical patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The medical records of all consecutive high risk surgical patients admitted to the ICU from 1996 to 1998 (open format) and from 2003 to 2005 (closed format), were reviewed. High-risk patients were defined according to the Identification of Risk in Surgical patients (IRIS) score. Parameters studied were: mortality, morbidity, ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mortality of ICU patients was 25.7% in the open format group and 15.8% in the closed format group (p = 0.01). Morbidity decreased from 48.6% to 46.1% (p = 0.6). The average length of hospital stay was 17 days in the open format group, and 21 days in the closed format group (p = 0.03).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>High risk surgical patients in the ICU are patients that have undergone complex and often extensive surgery. These patients are in need of specialized treatment and careful monitoring for maximum safety and optimal care. Our results suggest that closed format is a more favourable setting than open format to minimize the effects of high risk surgery, and to warrant safe outcome in this patient group.</p

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Abstract Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/1/1748-5908-4-50.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/2/1748-5908-4-50-S1.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/3/1748-5908-4-50-S3.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/4/1748-5908-4-50-S4.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/5/1748-5908-4-50.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/6/1748-5908-4-50-S2.PDFPeer Reviewe

Patient safety culture lives in departments and wards: Multilevel partitioning of variance in patient safety culture

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aim of study was to document 1) that patient safety culture scores vary considerably by hospital department and ward, and 2) that much of the variation is across the lowest level organizational units: the wards. Setting of study: 500-bed Norwegian university hospital, September-December 2006.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data collected from 1400 staff by (the Norwegian version of) the generic version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ Short Form 2006). Multilevel analysis by MLwiN version 1.10.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Considerable parts of the score variations were at the ward and department levels. More organization level variation was seen at the ward level than at the department level.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patient safety culture improvement efforts should not be limited to all-hospital interventions or interventions aimed at entire departments, but include involvement at the ward level, selectively aimed at low-scoring wards. Patient safety culture should be studied as closely to the patient as possible. There may be such a thing as "hospital safety culture" and the variance across hospital departments indicates the existence of department safety cultures. However, neglecting the study of patient safety culture at the ward level will mask important local variations. Safety culture research and improvement should not stop at the lowest formal level of the hospital (wards, out-patient clinics, ERs), but proceed to collect and analyze data on the micro-units within them.</p

Lung protective mechanical ventilation and two year survival in patients with acute lung injury: prospective cohort study

Objective To evaluate the association of volume limited and pressure limited (lung protective) mechanical ventilation with two year survival in patients with acute lung injury

The Moral of the Tale: Stories, Trust, and Public Engagement with Clinical Ethics via Radio and Theatre.

Trust is frequently discussed with reference to the professional-patient relationship. However, trust is less explored in relation to the ways in which understanding of, and responses to, questions of ethics are discussed by both the "public" and "experts." Public engagement activity in healthcare ethics may invoke "trust" in analysing a moral question or problem but less frequently conceives of trust as integral to "public engagement" itself. This paper explores the relationship between trust and the ways in which questions of healthcare ethics are identified and negotiated by both "experts" and the public. Drawing on two examples from the author's "public engagement" work-a radio programme for the British Broadcasting Corporation and work with a playwright and theatre-the paper interrogates the ways in which "public engagement" is often characterized. The author argues that the common approach to public engagement in questions of ethics is unhelpfully constrained by a systemic disposition which continues to privilege the professional or expert voice at the expense of meaningful exchange and dialogue. By creating space for novel interactions between the "expert" and the "public," authentic engagement is achieved that enables not only the participants to flourish but also contributes to trust itself

Decision making in interhospital transport of critically ill patients: national questionnaire survey among critical care physicians

Objective: This study assessed the relative importance of clinical and transport-related factors in physicians' decision-making regarding the interhospital transport of critically ill patients. Methods: The medical heads of all 95 ICUs in The Netherlands were surveyed with a questionnaire using 16 case vignettes to evaluate preferences for transportability; 78 physicians (82%) participated. The vignettes varied in eight factors with regard to severity of illness and transport conditions. Their relative weights were calculated for each level of the factors by conjoint analysis and expressed in beta. The reference value (beta = 0) was defined as the optimal conditions for critical care transport; a negative beta indicated preference against transportability. Results: The type of escorting personnel (paramedic only: beta = 3.1) and transport facilities (standard ambulance beta = 1.21) had the greatest negative effect on preference for transportability. Determinants reflecting severity of illness were of relative minor importance (dose of noradrenaline beta = 0.6, arterial oxygenation beta = 0.8, level of peep beta = 0.6). Age, cardiac arrhythmia, and the indication for transport had no significant effect. Conclusions: Escorting personnel and transport facilities in interhospital transport were considered as most important by intensive care physicians in determining transportability. When these factors are optimal, even severely critically ill patients are considered able to undergo transport. Further clinical research should tailor transport conditions to optimize the use of expensive resources in those inevitable road trip

The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration

As the science of quality improvement in health care advances, the importance of sharing its accomplishments through the published literature increases. Current reporting of improvement work in health care varies widely in both content and quality. It is against this backdrop that a group of stakeholders from a variety of disciplines has created the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence, which we refer to as the SQUIRE publication guidelines or SQUIRE statement. The SQUIRE statement consists of a checklist of 19 items that authors need to consider when writing articles that describe formal studies of quality improvement. Most of the items in the checklist are common to all scientific reporting, but virtually all of them have been modified to reflect the unique nature of medical improvement work