Loading...

Lessons Learned

Course video 21 of 33

This module explains the Translating Research into Practice (TRiP) model. It is a methodology to facilitate the adoption and use of evidence-based therapies. This model itself uses a collaborative knowledge translation model for wider sharing of knowledge into practice.

Planning a Patient Safety or Quality Improvement Project (Patient Safety III)

Université Johns-Hopkins

Cours 3 de 7 dans Patient Safety Spécialisation

This course provides students with a set of tools and methodologies to plan and initiate a Problem Solving or Quality Improvement project. The first module presents methods for selecting, scoping and structuring a project before it is even initiated. It also introduces the project classifications of implementation and discovery. The second module describes the A3 problem solving methodology and the tool itself. Further in that same module, the student is shown tools to identify problems in flow, defects, and waste and to discover causes, brainstorm, and prioritize interventions. Module 3 shows a methodology within the implementation class. These methods are designed to overcome emotional and organizational barriers to translating evidence-based interventions into practice. The fourth and last module looks at one more way to approach improvement projects in the discovery class. These tools are specifically for new, out-of-the-box design thinking.

Visualiser le programme de cours

Compétences que vous apprendrez

Project Management, Design Thinking, Quality Improvement

Enseigné par

Bob Hody

Transcription

[MUSIC]

In this video, we're going to talk about some of our lessons learned from working

with thousands of hospitals across the country towards translating evidence into

bedside practice.

Our model for translating evidence into practice includes four steps.

Summarizing the evidence, identifying local barriers to

implementation, measuring performance.

And then finally, ensuring that all patients receive the evidence-based

interventions that they should.

And we've talked in past videos about the four Es,

the important steps of engaging different stakeholders, educating them.

Having a clear plan for execution, so they know what we're asking them to do.

And then a clear plan for evaluation and feedback to important stakeholders to

evaluate how well our improvement interventions are ensuring that

patients receive the therapies they should and improving patient outcomes.

We've used this model in a number of large-scale collaboratives.

In a statewide effort called the Michigan Keystone ICU Program,

implementation in more than 100 ICUs was associated

with dramatic reduction in central line associated bloodstream infections.

In a subsequent study with thousands of hospitals across the US,

bloodstream infection reduced by over 40%.

And the number of hospitals that were able to achieve

a zero incidence of bloodstream infection in any quarter more than doubled.

We've used this model for translating evidence into practice for the prevention

of ventilator associated pneumonia in a large number of ICUs around the country.

And we've also begun to explore how this model may work for

prevention of venous thromboembolism and

surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

At Hopkins, for example, prevention of bloodstream infections was perhaps one of

the most important stories in our journey towards improving patient outcomes.

We've shared in detail some of the strategies that we

used to identify those evidence-based therapies that we wanted to focus on.

We explored how we identified local barriers by talking to front-line

staff and walking the process.

We talked about how we standardized care and

created independent checks by implementing a central line insertion cart.

And creating a checklist to help ensure that patients receive the evidence-based

therapies they should.

And the results were quite dramatic.

Across our entire healthcare system,

bloodstream infections dropped dramatically.

And essentially, we helped to create a culture whereby providers

who thought that these complications were inevitable truly began to understand that

these complications indeed were largely preventable.

We then worked with hospitals in the state of Michigan, over 100 ICUs.

And they achieved equally impressive reduction in bloodstream infection rates.

And then we went on to conduct a national effort

called On the CUSP: Stop BSI Program, with over 1,000 ICUs in 45 states.

These results were particularly impressive and important.

Because for decades, hospitals had been focusing on prevention of central line

associated bloodstream infections.

But yet when we introduced this model for

translating evidence into practice in this collaborative program,

hooking up hospitals to help begin to learn from each other.

These hospitals demonstrated a further reduction, 43% reduction in

central line associated bloodstream infections as a result of these efforts.

And in addition, the number of ICUs that were actually able to achieve

a zero rate of infection in any quarter more than doubled.

This model has also been used to prevent ventilator associated pneumonia,

a common and perhaps the most lethal healthcare associated infection for

patients who are in the ICU and on mechanical ventilation.

We've talked about how this model for translating evidence into

practice was applied for central line associated bloodstream infection.

But I wanted to share a couple of thoughts about how the lessons learned from

the implementation and adaptation to the prevention of VAP rolled out over time.

Like bloodstream infection, there are a number of guidelines that outline

effective strategies for prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia,

like elevating the head of the bed.

Minimizing the amount of sedation that patients receive, or

evaluating with objective measures every day whether patients could be

liberated from the ventilator.

But like bloodstream infections, we found that many times,

patients didn't receive the evidence-based therapies they should.

We talked to front line staff, we walked the process.

And we enlisted important stakeholders to help us better understand

why is it that patients aren't receiving the evidence-based therapies they should.

Not surprisingly, we found out that lack of awareness

was a significant barrier to the adoption of evidence-based intervention.

And even more important in our investigation was that providers told

us that care of patients within the ICU is exceedingly complex.

And oftentimes, when we're taking care of a patient in the ICU,

we're much more focused on those things that are readily apparent,

like the treatment of septic shock or the treatment of heart failure.

And oftentimes, we weren't thinking about providing therapies that may prevent

a complication several days or even weeks from where we are right now.

So ventilator associated pneumonia and

the interventions to prevent it essentially were an invisible risk for

many ICU providers who are taking care of these critically ill patients.

So to address this issue, we needed to do a better job, just like in bloodstream

infections, of really focusing on the evidence-based therapies that we

thought were the most important and that had the lowest barriers to implementation.

We also needed to standardize the system and create independent checks.

And to do that, we adapted our previously successful daily goals form.

Essentially, it's a one-page checklist that covers those therapies that we

need to make sure happen every day on every patient within the ICU.

And we adopted the daily goals to include those evidence-based therapies for

the prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia.

Of course, we encouraged hospitals to measure performance and

make sure that we got that performance feedback to our front line staff.

And we also navigated the four Es.

We engaged important stakeholders within the organizations,

within our own organization.

And we coached organizations to

create these interdisciplinary teams within their own ICU.

We went about the process of educating staff to help them

really make sure that they understood what we were asking them to do.

We had a clear plan for execution.

Essentially, it was routine care.

But we wanted to make sure that we incorporated these checklist

into the care of patients every day within the ICU.

And then finally, that evaluation piece,

making sure that providers knew how well they were performing as an ICU

ensuring that patients received the therapies they should.

And how often patients were developing these lethal complications.

For prevention of venous thromboembolism, again, we modified our model.

Similar to bloodstream infections,

there are clear recommendations about what we should be doing.

But oftentimes, providers weren't aware of those evidence-based recommendations.

There were also some concerns expressed, particularly by our surgical colleagues,

about the risks associated with aggressive pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis.

And many providers told us that the system was too complicated.

Current guidelines required providers to consider not just the patient's current

medical condition, but also any other risk factors that that patient may have,

as well as the type of procedure or the reason why the patient is hospitalized.

Essentially, providers said that it was too difficult to

navigate this complex system and to remember all the things that

they should to create a plan for prevention of venous thromboembolisms.

To simplify that system and to create those independent checks,

we had to make it easier for providers to do the right thing.

So we embedded this decision support algorithm within the electronic

medical record.

And we required it for all patients who are being admitted to our hospitals.

Providers had to go through this easy to navigate tool

identifying what the patient's risk factors were, and

then helping to ensure that they ordered the most appropriate therapy.

We also needed to do a better job of engaging

particularly our surgical colleagues.

And one of the things that we clearly recognized with engagement was that we

had to have a surgeon at the face of this intervention.

That was exceedingly important to help ensure that the surgeons believed

that these interventions were safe and that they were appropriate for

their patient care population.

Overall, the results were pretty dramatic.

We saw significant improvements in the percent of patients that were

receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, or appropriate prophylaxis.

And we saw dramatic reductions in the number of patients who developed

preventable venous thromboembolisms.

We've also begun to explore how this work may apply to other healthcare associated

infections, including surgical site infections.

We'll talk more about this in another video.

So the lessons learned from these efforts working with hospitals across the country

for the prevention of healthcare associated infections and

other preventable complications is that many of these complications,

including most healthcare associated infections, are largely preventable.

They need to be viewed as defects within our systems.

Because oftentimes, these patients aren't receiving the evidence-based

therapies they should to prevent these complications.

To be successful, we need to focus on the systems of care,

and not focusing on individuals.

Without a doubt, our front line staff care a lot about our patient outcomes.

They want patients to do well, and they're trying their hardest.

To be successful, we need to focus on the systems to make sure that

every system is perfectly designed to achieve the results that it does.

We need to make it easier for providers to do the right thing.

And when we can do that, patients will have better outcomes.

And finally, this work is far more complex that simply

implementing a checklist that's completed during the time of central line insertion.

Or a daily goals form to make sure that patients receive the evidence-based

therapies they should.

These tools, such as checklists and protocols, they work, and

they're useful, but they only work if providers use them.

To be successful, we need to do a better job of engaging

our front line staff to identify and to fix our local defects.

À propos de Coursera

Cours, Spécialisations et Diplômes en ligne enseignés par des enseignants du plus haut niveau provenant des meilleurs universités et établissements d'enseignement du monde.

Join a community of 40 million learners from around the world

Earn a skill-based course certificate to apply your knowledge

Gain confidence in your skills and further your career

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play