Background: Centralizing healthcare associated infection (HAI) data for 21 hospitals across several states facilitates a big picture assessment of monthly enterprise performance along with evaluation of practice, policy, and products. Variation in prevention practices has made it difficult to identify areas of focus and created confusion when attempting to standardize prevention tactics for central-line and urinary catheter care. Lack of consistent practice audits have made it difficult to evaluate actual practice. For these reasons, we performed a gap analysis to understand the current state. Methods: Gap assessment tools were developed to assess infection prevention practices for central lines and indwelling urinary catheters. Survey questions were developed with a comment option to collect qualitative data. The 2014 Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infection in Acute-care Hospitals was utilized as the reference point. This document facilitates the translation of essential information into clinical practice, thus providing the rationale and level of evidence needed for discussion groups. Completion occurred with various key stakeholders within each hospital. One survey per hospital was compiled. Results: All hospitals completed the survey with key themes emerging and supported by observational data. Findings included variation with education, chlorhexidine bathing, types of dressings, and compliance with alcohol port protectors. Gaps identified with urinary catheter care included confusion surrounding catheter care, breaches in seals, and optimizing alternatives to catheterization. Rather than segment solutions for identified gaps, care bundles were developed to provide focus, to facilitate evidence-based practice, and to create standard work-around clinical audits that consisted of going to the patient rather than the electronic health record. Care bundles provided the 6 items to focus on and for which to create policy and standardize products. Conclusions: Care-bundle implementation initially created resistance from clinicians and many questions regarding actual practice. The design of the tool was deliberate in that audit language, the metric, and the “why” were included and served as a medium to discuss the evidence and immediate feedback for practice. Pareto charts were posted on unit performance boards. It became evident that compliance with prevention tactics was not consistent. Although number of infections or outcome data did not appreciably decrease, standardized utilization ratio was reduced by 11% for each device after 3 quarters. Process measures from bundle audits continue to improve, as do observational data, and these are part of focused discussions at quality forums. A culture change has occurred as process measures and evidence-based practice has become a priority.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
An Application of Patient Safety in the Context of Evidence Based Practice: Care Bundles
