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

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 14-24
Author(s):  
Jordan Jackson ◽  
Holly Kirkland-Kyhn ◽  
Laura Kenny ◽  
Alana Beres ◽  
Stephanie Mateev

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.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (12) ◽  
pp. 1583-1591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Coory ◽  
Victoria M. White ◽  
Kristin S. Johnson ◽  
David J. Hill ◽  
Michael Jefford ◽  
...  

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).


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirtley Ceballos ◽  
Kari Waterman ◽  
Teresa Hulett ◽  
Mary Beth Flynn Makic

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e84464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
Isabel Ruiz-Perez ◽  
Antonio Rojas-García ◽  
Guadalupe Pastor ◽  
Daniela C. Gonçalves

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document