104
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention in Brazilian intensive care units: study protocol

      research-article
      , The CHECKLIST-ICU Investigators and the BRICNet
      Implementation Science : IS
      BioMed Central
      Intensive care, Critical illness, Intensive care units, Checklist, Hospital mortality, Outcome and process assessment (health care), Quality improvement

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The uptake of evidence-based therapies in the intensive care environment is suboptimal, particularly in limited-resource countries. Checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts may improve compliance with best practice processes of care and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of checklists is unreliable and inconclusive, and the mechanisms are poorly understood. We aim to evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including the use of a checklist and the definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts, can improve the in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Our secondary objectives are to assess the effects of the study intervention on specific processes of care, clinical outcomes, and the safety culture and to determine which factors (the processes of care and/or safety culture) mediate the effect of the study intervention on mortality.

          Methods/design

          This is a cluster randomized trial involving 118 ICUs in Brazil conducted in two phases. In the observational preparatory phase, we collect baseline data on processes of care and clinical outcomes from 60 consecutive patients with lengths of ICU stay longer than 48 h and apply the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to 75% or more of the health care staff in each ICU. In the randomized phase, we assign ICUs to the experimental or control arm and repeat data collection. Experimental arm ICUs receive the multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including a checklist and definition of daily care goals during daily multidisciplinary rounds, clinician prompting, and feedback on rates of adherence to selected care processes. Control arm ICUs maintain usual care. The primary outcome is in-hospital mortality, truncated at 60 days. Secondary outcomes include the rates of adherence to appropriate care processes, rates of other clinical outcomes, and scores on the SAQ domains. Analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle, and the primary outcome is analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression.

          Discussion

          This is a large scale, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including checklists applied during the multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompting, can improve the adoption of proven therapies and decrease the mortality of critically ill patients. If this study finds that the intervention reduces mortality, it may be widely adopted in intensive care units, even those in limited-resource settings.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01785966

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0190-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evolution of mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

          Baseline characteristics and management have changed over time in patients requiring mechanical ventilation; however, the impact of these changes on patient outcomes is unclear. To estimate whether mortality in mechanically ventilated patients has changed over time. Prospective cohort studies conducted in 1998, 2004, and 2010, including patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 12 hours in a 1-month period, from 927 units in 40 countries. To examine effects over time on mortality in intensive care units, we performed generalized estimating equation models. We included 18,302 patients. The reasons for initiating mechanical ventilation varied significantly among cohorts. Ventilatory management changed over time (P < 0.001), with increased use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (5% in 1998 to 14% in 2010), a decrease in tidal volume (mean 8.8 ml/kg actual body weight [SD = 2.1] in 1998 to 6.9 ml/kg [SD = 1.9] in 2010), and an increase in applied positive end-expiratory pressure (mean 4.2 cm H2O [SD = 3.8] in 1998 to 7.0 cm of H2O [SD = 3.0] in 2010). Crude mortality in the intensive care unit decreased in 2010 compared with 1998 (28 versus 31%; odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.94), despite a similar complication rate. Hospital mortality decreased similarly. After adjusting for baseline and management variables, this difference remained significant (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.92). Patient characteristics and ventilation practices have changed over time, and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients have improved. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01093482).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study.

            Mortality from severe sepsis and septic shock differs across continents, countries, and regions. We aimed to use data from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) to compare models of care and outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA and Europe. The SSC was introduced into more than 200 sites in Europe and the USA. All patients identified with severe sepsis and septic shock in emergency departments or hospital wards and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), and those with sepsis in ICUs were entered into the SSC database. Patients entered into the database from its launch in January, 2005, through January, 2010, in units with at least 20 patients and 3 months of enrolment of patients were included in this analysis. Patients included in the cohort were limited to those entered in the first 4 years at every site. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate the hospital mortality odds ratio (OR) for Europe relative to the USA. We used random-effects linear regression to find the relation between lengths of stay in hospital and ICU and geographic region. 25 375 patients were included in the cohort. The USA included 107 sites with 18 766 (74%) patients, and Europe included 79 hospital sites with 6609 (26%) patients. In the USA, 12 218 (65·1%) were admitted to the ICU from the emergency department whereas in Europe, 3405 (51·5%) were admitted from the wards. The median stay on the hospital wards before ICU admission was longer in Europe than in the USA (1·0 vs 0·1 days, difference 0·9, 95% CI 0·8-0·9). Raw hospital mortality was higher in Europe than in the USA (41·1%vs 28·3%, difference 12·8, 95% CI 11·5-14·7). The median length of stay in ICU (7·8 vs 4·2 days, 3·6, 3·3-3·7) and hospital (22·8 vs 10·5 days, 12·3, 11·9-12·8) was longer in Europe than in the USA. Adjusted mortality in Europe was not significantly higher than that in the USA (32·3%vs 31·3%, 1·0, -1·7 to 3·7, p=0·468). Complete compliance with all applicable elements of the sepsis resuscitation bundle was higher in the USA than in Europe (21·6%vs 18·4%, 3·2, 2·2-4·4). The significant difference in unadjusted mortality and the fact that this difference disappears with severity adjustment raise important questions about the effect of the approach to critical care in Europe compared with that in the USA. The effect of ICU bed availability on outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock requires further investigation. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys.

              Five years ago the Institute of Medicine recommended improving patient safety by addressing organizational cultural issues. Since then, surveys measuring a patient safety climate considered predictive of health outcomes have begun to emerge. This paper compares the general characteristics, dimensions covered, psychometrics performed, and uses in studies of patient safety climate surveys. Systematic literature review. Nine surveys were found that measured the patient safety climate of an organization. All used Likert scales, mostly to measure attitudes of individuals. Nearly all covered five common dimensions of patient safety climate: leadership, policies and procedures, staffing, communication, and reporting. The strength of psychometric testing varied. While all had been used to compare units within or between hospitals, only one had explored the association between organizational climate and patient outcomes. Patient safety climate surveys vary considerably. Achievement of a culture conducive to patient safety may be an admirable goal in its own right, but more effort should be expended on understanding the relationship between measures of patient safety climate and patient outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                abiasi@hcor.com.br
                abiasi@hcor.com.br
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                13 January 2015
                13 January 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 8
                Affiliations
                Research Institute - Hospital do Coração (IEP– HCor), Rua Abílio Soares 250, 12th floor, CEP: 04005-000 - São Paulo SP, Brazil
                Article
                190
                10.1186/s13012-014-0190-0
                4342101
                fa69b34c-0485-4ed1-8d59-863ef564398c
                © Cavalcanti et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 November 2014
                : 9 December 2014
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                intensive care,critical illness,intensive care units,checklist,hospital mortality,outcome and process assessment (health care),quality improvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article