scholarly journals Project Hanford management contract quality improvement project management plan

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.E. ADAMS
Author(s):  
Andrew C. Nixon ◽  
Julie Brown ◽  
Ailsa Brotherton ◽  
Mark Harrison ◽  
Judith Todd ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction The aims of this quality improvement project were to: (1) proactively identify people living with frailty and CKD; (2) introduce a practical assessment, using the principles of the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), for people living with frailty and chronic kidney disease (CKD) able to identify problems; and (3) introduce person-centred management plans for people living with frailty and CKD. Methods A frailty screening programme, using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), was introduced in September 2018. A Geriatric Assessment (GA) was offered to patients with CFS ≥ 5 and non-dialysis- or dialysis-dependent CKD. Renal Frailty Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings were established to discuss needs identified and implement a person-centred management plan. Results A total of 450 outpatients were screened using the CFS. One hundred and fifty patients (33%) were screened as frail. Each point increase in the CFS score was independently associated with a hospitalisation hazard ratio of 1.35 (95% CI 1.20–1.53) and a mortality hazard ratio of 2.15 (95% CI 1.63–2.85). Thirty-five patients received a GA and were discussed at a MDT meeting. Patients experienced a median of 5.0 (IQR 3.0) problems, with 34 (97%) patients experiencing at least three problems. Conclusions This quality improvement project details an approach to the implementation of a frailty screening programme and GA service within a nephrology centre. Patients living with frailty and CKD at risk of adverse outcomes can be identified using the CFS. Furthermore, a GA can be used to identify problems and implement a person-centred management plan that aims to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group of patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i18-i20
Author(s):  
M Munir ◽  
T Shouter ◽  
H S Tay

Abstract Introduction Older people are likely to have more CT head scans given their multiple co- morbidities, being on anticoagulants, and increased falls. The aims of this quality improvement project (QIP) were to identify the number of patients who had CT head scan, the reason/indication of it, the number of patients who had new finding/s on it, actions taken on new findings, and whether the management plan was altered because of the CT scan. Methods Medical notes and CT head scan reports of all patients admitted to the Health Care of Older People department from April to September 2018 were reviewed to evaluate the indications of CT head scans, new findings, and management plans following the findings. Results 461 (10.7%) out of the 4323 patients discharged from the healthcare of older people department during April to September 2018 had CT head scans during admission. Frequent indications for CT head scans included delirium, falls and head injury. Only 46 (9.9%) patients had new finding/s on the CT head scan, and action was taken on 26 (56.5%) of these patients. The CT head scan changed the management plan of only 17 (3.6%) patients. Please see Table for more details. Conclusions By using our clinical judgement, following NICE guidelines on head injuries, educating our colleagues on the criteria for requesting a CT head scan, taking collateral histories about patients’ cognition and ascertaining the mechanism of fall, we can lessen the financial burden on the NHS and minimise the radiation exposure to our patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
P McLoughlin ◽  
A McAdam

Abstract Introduction The post take ward round (PTWR) is a vital element to ensure patient safety. Although well established as a necessity, often documentation is poor and does not accurately reflect a clinical assessment or generated management plan. This quality improvement project aimed to assess the pitfalls of the PTWR and improve these were possible in-line with best clinical practice. Method Audit standards were established using national guidelines, including those by the Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Surgeons, GAIN guidelines and NICE. An initial audit was carried out against these guidelines. Following this, three distinct interventions were implemented namely, Junior Doctor Education Sessions, a Urology Consultant Email Circular, and the development of a Urology PTWR Checklist. After each intervention, a re-audit was carried out. Results Compliance with guidelines improved across all standards set. Overall compliance improved from 19.0% to 70.4% after our three interventions were implemented. Conclusions The results of the initial audit outlined that PTWR documentation is often very poor or severely lacking. Fortunately, this QIP demonstrates how the urology PTWR can be significantly improved with relatively simple measures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document