Reducing adverse drug events: lessons from a breakthrough series collaborative.

BACKGROUND: In January 1996, 38 hospitals and health care organizations (for a total of 40 hospitals) in the United States came together in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI; Boston) Breakthrough Series collaborative to reduce adverse drug events-injuries related to the use or nonuse of medications. METHODS: The participants were taught the Model for Improvement, a method for rapid-cycle change and evaluation, and were then coached on how to identify their own problem areas and develop changes in practice for rapid-cycle testing. These changes could be implementation of one or more known medication error prevention practices or new practices developed. RESULTS: During a 15-month period the 40 hospitals conducted a total of 739 tests of changes. Process changes accounted for 63% of the cycles; the remainder consisted of preliminary data gathering, consensus-building, or education cycles. Eight types of changes were implemented by seven or more hospitals, with a success rate of 70%. These changes included non-punitive reporting, ensuring documentation of allergy information, standardizing medication administration times, and implementing chemotherapy protocols. DISCUSSION: Success in making significant changes was associated with strong leadership, effective processes, and appropriate choice of intervention. Successful teams were able to define, clearly state, and relentlessly pursue their aims, and then chose practical interventions and moved early into changing a process. They did not spend months collecting data before beginning a change. Changes that were most successful were those that attempted to change processes, not people. Health care organizations committed to patient safety need not regard current performance limits as inevitable.

Lessons in cooperation: four hospital consortia relate their quality improvement experiences.

BACKGROUND: In 1989, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation launched a demonstration project to test a consortium approach to quality improvement. As part of this project, four hospital consortia in various parts of the United States are currently sharing quality resources (for example, training) and collaborating on various improvement efforts. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate that hospitals can take on more difficult problems and accomplish more in cooperation with each other than on their own. CASE STUDIES: The Institute for Quality Healthcare (Iowa City, Iowa) has built a comparative database so that 40 member hospitals can make meaningful comparisons on various aspects of performance; The Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care has lowered the postoperative infection rate in Vermont by monitoring compliance with consensus guidelines; Interwest Quality of Care, Inc, which has member organizations in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, has adapted and disseminated guidelines for diabetic care; and The Public Hospital Institute, in Berkeley, California, has worked with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to develop a written guide to help surveyors understand the unique operational traits of public hospitals. LESSONS LEARNED: Projects such as those with champions in several member organizations and comparative data analysis lend themselves more easily to cooperative work than others. They also provide some strategies for collaboration, such as continually reinforcing the principles of collaboration, obtaining a fully informed commitment, beginning with initiatives that are likely successes, and being serious and vocal about the commitment to confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborators in quality improvement gain important resources, such as better information, more relevant reference databases, colleagues and support for quality improvement specialists, and economies of scale in education programs, training materials, and interaction with vendors. However, the difficulties in collaboration are great. Hospitals must continually consider not only "What's in this for me," but also "What can we accomplish as a group that is greater than what each of us can do alone?"