Breast imaging boot camp: A mammography quality improvement initiative.

138 Background: In mammography, compression, and positioning are key quality factors. ACR standards suggest that compression should ensure that a breast is taut (drawn tight with no slack). In environmental scans, semi-structured interviews with cross discipline providers from Chicago mammography facilities, we found wide variation in radiology technologist’s understanding of standard compression and views. Optimal compression was reported from 12-45 lbs and some sites reported that four views are taken regardless of breast size. This discovery led to a mammography technologist training program as a quality improvement intervention. Methods: The Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium contracted with Louise Miller, AART, CRT, and RTRM to lead a Breast Imaging Boot Camp and partnered with 4 hospitals to carry out the training. There were three components of the boot camp: a 1-day seminar for all mammography technologists, 1 day of hands on training for a limited number of techs and a train the trainer component where selected techs went through a 3-day intensive program with the goal of preparing them to provide ongoing education to the Chicago mam-tech community. A preliminary tool was developed and used randomly by radiologists during the training to examine the amount of tissue in the image from one year to the next, the presence or absence of an Inter-mammary fold and cleavage. Results: More than 120 radiology technologists attended a day-long seminar, 10 received hands on training, 4 of the 10 were trained to be future trainers. Participants rated their overall impression of the day-long seminar between 4 and 5 on a 5-point scale. During the hands-on training, radiologists assessing the images commented on significant improvements in image quality from the previous year’s mammogram. A quantitative evaluation process has been developed to examine the efficacy of the training and measure impact on mammography quality. This evaluation involves a 3 month and 1-year assessment that will take place in September of 2012 and again in May of 2013. Results of first evaluation will be available for presentation. Conclusions: Results from the evaluation will help review effectiveness of technologists post-training techniques and identify areas to improve.

Download Full-text

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

10.21203/rs.2.24055/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Anne van Tuijl ◽

Hub C. Wollersheim ◽

Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽

Petra. J. van Gurp ◽

Hiske Calsbeek

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Online Survey ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Learning By Doing ◽

Mixed Methods Study ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Priority Score ◽

A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative . A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

Download Full-text

Implementation of a checklist before colonoscopy: a quality improvement initiative

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/s-0043-121218 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 50 (03) ◽

pp. 203-210 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Omar Kherad ◽

Sophie Restellini ◽

Charles Ménard ◽

Myriam Martel ◽

Alan Barkun

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Positive Impact ◽

Quality Improvement Intervention ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Team Communication ◽

Intervention Period ◽

Retrospective Audit ◽

Safety Outcomes ◽

Checklist Implementation ◽

Improvement Intervention

Abstract Background and study aims Checklists can prevent errors and have a positive impact on patient morbidity and mortality in different surgical settings, and possibly also in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aims of this study were to reinforce commitment in safety culture and better communication among team members in endoscopy, and to prove the feasibility of successful checklist adoption before colonoscopy. Patients and methods The study involved a pre – post quality improvement intervention involving all consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy at a single academic endoscopy unit. The first part of the study was a retrospective audit, carried out over a 3-month period (July to September 2016). A checklist developed through a formal validation process was implemented during the intervention period (October to December 2016). Primary outcomes were changes in patient and team satisfaction after the quality improvement intervention, using validated 5-point scale questionnaires. Secondary outcomes included successful procedure completion rates and safety outcomes. Results During the baseline and comparative intervention period, 1317 and 1141 colonoscopies, respectively, were performed. Overall, checklists were fully completed by nurses and physicians for 791 patients (69.3 %). Mean overall patient satisfaction was high at baseline and did not differ following the quality improvement intervention (4.66 vs. 4.63; P = 0.5). Perception of team communication and teamwork was improved after checklist implementation. Comparative analyses of per-procedure and safety outcomes did not differ between the pre- and post-checklist implementation. Conclusion Adoption of an endoscopy checklist before colonoscopy is feasible, and significantly increases perception of team communication and teamwork. Additional studies are needed to assess the generalizability of these results to complex endoscopic procedures and to characterize any improvement in patient safety outcomes.

Download Full-text

Abstract 17394: Hypertension in Adults: Quality Improvement Intervention Evaluation of a Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Program

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.138.suppl_1.17394 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 138 (Suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Angelica M Smith ◽

Holly A Buchanan ◽

John W Lewis ◽

Shelly P Smith

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Quality Improvement ◽

Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽

Monitoring Program ◽

Text Message ◽

Quality Improvement Intervention ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Limiting Factor ◽

Medication Regimen ◽

The Impact

Introduction: Hypertension (HTN) is an insidious condition that affects many Americans. This quality improvement initiative evaluated the effectiveness of HTN management through a Self-Measured Blood Pressure (SMBP) monitoring tool through Check.Change.Control® (CCC). Hypothesis: To implement CCC and evaluate the impact on blood pressure throughout rural primary care clinics and wellness clinics over a six month period. This initiative assessed barriers for patients to adhere to medication regimen and barriers for providers to engage in patients’ HTN management. Methods: This initiative used CCC data to evaluate blood pressure changes and trends. Survey monkey were used to assess and evaluate patients and providers barriers for HTN management. Results: The sample included 208 adults with diagnosis of HTN with medication regimen. Regular tool use resulted in 76% reporting BP equal or less than 140/90. Compliance with medication regimens improved to 79.23%. The overall mean reduction in systolic was -11.3 mm Hg and diastolic was –9.7 mm Hg. Barriers reported through surveys included forgetting to take medication (5%) and forgetting to pick up medication from the pharmacy (2%). Most survey respondents (89.97%) agreed that text message reminders helped them be compliant.Thirty-six percent of providers and clinical staff cited time as a limiting factor for enrolling patients; providers reported one third of patients (33%) cited lack of interest in the program as the barrier for enrollment. 87.67% of respondents asserted CCC was helpful in managing hypertensive patients and foresee continuing using the tool. Conclusions: This quality improvement initiative showed how the addition of CCC can aid improve compliance with medication regimens and blood pressure management. Technology empowered patients to better manage their HTN. High acceptance of the tool among providers, volunteers, and participants facilitated the connection between community, work, and healthcare organizations to improve HTN management. Future efforts should focus on creating and implementing initiatives to help reduce barriers for HTN management.

Download Full-text

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF A DKA ORDER SET IN A PEDIATRIC TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE

Paediatrics & Child Health ◽

10.1093/pch/pxy054.028 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 23 (suppl_1) ◽

pp. e11-e11

Author(s):

Kayla Flood ◽

Munier Nour ◽

Vicki Cattell ◽

Tayna Holt ◽

Blair Seifert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Evaluation Process ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Care Hospital ◽

End User ◽

Paediatric Patients ◽

Tertiary Center ◽

The Impact ◽

Order Set

Abstract BACKGROUND Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a common clinical presentation in new and previously diagnosed paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. In contrast to other Canadian tertiary paediatric hospitals, our center lacked a physician-endorsed evidence-informed care pathway for management of DKA. In the absence of a standardized approach to DKA, variability in patient management and outcomes were observed. This project was a quality improvement initiative that sought to develop and pilot a paediatric DKA order set. OBJECTIVES Our primary aim was to attain broad clinical uptake of the order set at our tertiary care center over a 12-month period. Secondary aims included improved standard-of-care DKA management: appropriate fluid bolus volume and maintenance rates; initial potassium management; and timely dextrose supplementation. DESIGN/METHODS A paediatric multidisciplinary collaborative was created to examine evidence for the development and implementation of a DKA order set. Implementation of the order set involved department wide education, targeted end-user education, and quarterly end-user review. A modified plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle guided by end-user feedback and early clinical outcomes allowed progressive order set modifications. RESULTS A retrospective chart review of fifty paediatric patients presenting to our center between April 2014 and September 2016 (pre-implementation) was compared to thirty paediatric patients presenting in DKA during the post-implementation phase (September 2016 – September 2017). There were no statistically significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups. We achieved 83% uptake of the order set for patients presenting to our tertiary center and 67% uptake for patients transferred from peripheral centers. Improvements in DKA management included: appropriate intravenous (IV) maintenance fluid rates (20% vs. 48.3%, p=0.008), earlier administration of potassium to IV fluids (66% vs. 93.1%, p=0.006); appropriate potassium chloride dosing (40 mmol/L) to IV fluid (40% vs. 79.3%, p=0.0007) and earlier addition of IV dextrose (67.4% vs. 93.1%, p=0.009). No differences in moderate to severe hypokalemia (< 3.0 mmol/L), hypoglycemia (<4.0 mmol/L) or clinically suspected cerebral edema occurred. CONCLUSION Implementation of a DKA order set in a tertiary hospital required identification of key stakeholders, formation of a multidisciplinary team, and the development of an evaluation process. There was an observed increase in physician order set uptake and DKA management practice improvements. Future goals involve expanding the implementation and evaluation process to regional and remote centers and analyzing the impact on resource utilization.

Download Full-text

Prevention of spinal fusion post-operative wound infections in pediatric patients with scoliosis: a quality improvement initiative

Spine Deformity ◽

10.1007/s43390-020-00274-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Elizabeth Partridge ◽

Dean Blumberg ◽

Rolando F. Roberto

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Spinal Fusion ◽

Infection Rate ◽

Neuromuscular Scoliosis ◽

Quality Improvement Intervention ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Wound Infections ◽

Deep Wound ◽

Operative Wound

Abstract Purpose Post-operative wound infections increase patient morbidity and mortality as well as the length of hospital stay, with a profound personal and institutional cost. The aim of this study was to decrease post-operative infections through development of a surgical antibiotic prophylaxis policy based on institution-specific risk factors and microbiology data. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of deep wound infections at our institution over a 5-year period (2014–2018). 399 spinal fusion procedures were performed with a 2.5% post-operative infection rate. Patients with neuromuscular scoliosis were six times more likely to develop deep wound infections (7.6%) compared to patients with congenital and idiopathic scoliosis (combined rate of 1.25%). The microbiology data revealed that polymicrobial, extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) gram negative organisms predominated in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. Based on these findings, we implemented an evidence-based quality improvement intervention: all patients with neuromuscular scoliosis undergoing spinal fusion were given a single 15 mg/kg dose of amikacin, in addition to our standard practice of perioperative cefazolin plus vancomycin with intra-operative betadine wash and vancomycin powder application. This intervention was put into practice in January 2019. Results Since the implementation of our quality improvement initiative, the overall post-operative infection rate decreased to 1.1% (2 infections in 176 cases). Ninety-eight percent of the 43 neuromuscular scoliosis patients who underwent spinal fusion in the post-intervention time frame have remained infection free. Conclusion Examination of post-operative infection and microbiology data at the institution level can guide the development of institution specific, evidence-based quality improvement initiatives that reduce post-operative wound infections.

Download Full-text

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

Implementation Science Communications ◽

10.1186/s43058-020-00082-w ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anne A. C. van Tuijl ◽

Hub C. Wollersheim ◽

Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit ◽

Petra J. van Gurp ◽

Hiske Calsbeek

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Online Survey ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Learning By Doing ◽

Mixed Methods Study ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Priority Score ◽

A Priority

Abstract Background Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

Download Full-text

MP33: Provincial spread of buprenorphine/naloxone initiation in emergency departments for opioid agonist treatment: a quality improvement initiative

CJEM ◽

10.1017/cem.2020.181 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (S1) ◽

pp. S54-S54

Author(s):

P. McLane ◽

K. Scott ◽

K. Yee ◽

Z. Suleman ◽

K. Dong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Safety ◽

Quality Improvement ◽

Emergency Departments ◽

Urgent Care ◽

Quality Improvement Intervention ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Opioid Agonist ◽

Opioid Agonist Treatment ◽

Discharged Patients

Background: Since January 1, 2016 2358 people have died from opioid poisoning in Alberta. Buprenorphine/naloxone (bup/nal) is the recommended first line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and this treatment can be initiated in emergency departments and urgent care centres (EDs). Aim Statement: This project aims to spread a quality improvement intervention to all 107 adult EDs in Alberta by March 31, 2020. The intervention supports clinicians to initiate bup/nal for eligible individuals and provide rapid referrals to OUD treatment clinics. Measures & Design: Local ED teams were identified (administrators, clinical nurse educators, physicians and, where available, pharmacists and social workers). Local teams were supported by a provincial project team (project manager, consultant, and five physician leads) through a multi-faceted implementation process using provincial order sets, clinician education products, and patient-facing information. We used administrative ED and pharmacy data to track the number of visits where bup/nal was given in ED, and whether discharged patients continued to fill any opioid agonist treatment (OAT) prescription 30 days after their index ED visit. OUD clinics reported the number of referrals received from EDs and the number attending their first appointment. Patient safety event reports were tracked to identify any unintended negative impacts. Evaluation/Results: We report data from May 15, 2018 (program start) to September 31, 2019. Forty-nine EDs (46% of 107) implemented the program and 22 (45% of 49) reported evaluation data. There were 5385 opioid-related visits to reporting ED sites after program adoption. Bup/nal was given during 832 ED visits (663 unique patients): 7 visits in the 1st quarter the program operated, 55 in the 2nd, 74 in the 3rd, 143 in the 4th, 294 in the 5th, and 255 in the 6th. Among 505 unique discharged patients with 30 day follow up data available 319 (63%) continued to fill any OAT prescription after receiving bup/nal in ED. 16 (70%) of 23 community clinics provided data. EDs referred patients to these clinics 440 times, and 236 referrals (54%) attended their first follow-up appointment. Available data may under-report program impact. 5 patient safety events have been reported, with no harm or minimal harm to the patient. Discussion/Impact: Results demonstrate effective spread and uptake of a standardized provincial ED based early medical intervention program for patients who live with OUD.

Download Full-text

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

10.21203/rs.2.24055/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Anne van Tuijl ◽

Hub C. Wollersheim ◽

Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽

Petra. J. van Gurp ◽

Hiske Calsbeek

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Online Survey ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Learning By Doing ◽

Mixed Methods Study ◽

Quality Improvement Initiative ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Priority Score ◽

A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

Download Full-text