Systematic Review of Quality Improvement Interventions Directed at Cancer Specialists

Purpose Summary evidence on the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions (QIIs) directed at cancer specialists is needed for two reasons. First, there are some innovations over which only cancer specialists have control (eg, surgical technique or chemotherapy regimen). Second, implementation of QIIs has opportunity costs; the time and money spent on an ineffective QII might be better spent on direct patient care. Methods Medical Subject Headings and text words for “quality improvement” were combined with those for “neoplasm” to search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE from January 1990 to August 2012 for studies of QIIs directed at cancer specialists (eg, medical/radiation oncologist, surgeon). All study designs were included. Results Five thousand seven hundred eighty-one articles were screened, but only 12 met the inclusion criteria, including three cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), seven uncontrolled before-and-after comparisons, and two cross-sectional studies. All 12 studies were conducted in response to concerns about quality of care. No cRCT showed a benefit of the QIIs tested. Some uncontrolled before-and-after and cross-sectional studies reported a benefit from the QII, but these studies are difficult to interpret because of concerns about uncontrolled confounding. Interventions in all studies were multifaceted, but descriptions of different components were limited, and only one study examined their separate impact. Conclusion The published evidence about how to facilitate timely and consistent adoption of new clinical knowledge by cancer specialists into everyday clinical practice is thin. More investment is needed in research about the solution (QIIs) to match the investment in research about the problem (inconsistent/slow adoption of innovative cancer treatments).

Download Full-text

Reducing Hospital-acquired Pressure Injuries Among Pediatric Patients Receiving ECMO: A Retrospective Study Examining Quality Improvement Outcomes

Wound Management & Prevention ◽

10.25270/wmp.2021.9.1424 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 67 (9) ◽

pp. 14-24

Author(s):

Jordan Jackson ◽

Holly Kirkland-Kyhn ◽

Laura Kenny ◽

Alana Beres ◽

Stephanie Mateev

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Pediatric Patients ◽

Wound Care ◽

Occipital Region ◽

Provider Education ◽

Before And After ◽

Prevention Interventions ◽

Improvement Interventions ◽

Quality Improvement Interventions ◽

Hospital Acquired

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients immobilized for certain procedures, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), are at high risk for developing hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of HAPI occurrence in ECMO patients before and after implementation of prevention interventions. METHODS: Patients younger than 18 years of age who were placed on ECMO from January 2012 through March 2020 were identified, and patient data, including the development of a stage 3, 4, or unstageable pressure injuries, were abstracted. From August 2018 through December 2018, HAPI prevention interventions were implemented, which included targeted HAPI prevention and ECMO provider education, fluidized positioner provider education, and the addition of 2 wound care interventions for ECMO patients. RESULTS: Of the 120 ECMO patients identified, 5 (4.2%) developed a HAPI. All patients developed HAPI in the occipital region, and 1 patient developed an additional HAPI on their back. The median age of patients with HAPI was 1 month (interquartile range [IQR], 0.3–6.8 months). The median duration from ECMO cannulation to identification of HAPI was 9.5 days (IQR, 4.8–32.3 days). The median total run time was 4.9 days (IQR, 2.5-7.6 days): 8.5 days for patients who did develop a HAPI and 4.8 days for those who did not develop a HAPI (P = .02). The overall HAPI rate dropped from 4.8% of ECMO patients before quality improvement interventions to 0% of ECMO patients after quality improvement interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The development of stage 3, 4, or unstageable HAPIs in pediatric ECMO patients was low (4.2%) over the period studied (January 2012 through March 2020). As of the time of this writing, no HAPIs occurred after implementation of provider education in 2018.

Download Full-text

Do quality improvement interventions for person-centered family planning work? Evidence from Kenya

Gates Open Research ◽

10.12688/gatesopenres.13120.1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 44

Author(s):

Nadia Diamond-Smith ◽

Katie Giessler ◽

Meghan Munson ◽

Cathy Green

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Family Planning ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Middle Income ◽

Health And Human Rights ◽

Centered Care ◽

Improvement Interventions ◽

Quality Improvement Interventions ◽

The Impact

Background: Quality of care for family planning, especially person-centered care, is important from a health and human-rights standpoint. Few interventions have aimed to improve person-centered family planning (PCFP) in low and middle-income countries. In this study, we tested the impact of a quality improvement (QI) intervention in Kenya on aspects of PCFP included in a validated measure of PCFP and on the overall PCFP scale. Methods: We conducted QI cycles in three facilities providing family planning in Nairobi and Kiambu Counties, Kenya, with three facilities serving as controls. Cross-sectional baseline data was collected from 478 women receiving family planning in 2016 and end line data was collected from 640 in 2017-18. We analysed the impact of the QI intervention on PCFP using difference-in-difference models. Results: We found no impact of the QI intervention on either PCFP or the overall PCFP scale. Conclusions: We take away key lessons learned from the null findings of the intervention that are important for future interventions. Lessons learned include the need to be flexible in light of external factors that prolonged the study and probably led to burnout; and simplifying measurement and procedures.

Download Full-text