Long-Term Quality of Life in Congenital Heart Disease Surgical Survivors: Multicenter Retrospective Study of Surgical and ICU Explanatory Factors.

OBJECTIVES: Greater congenital heart disease (CHD) complexity is associated with lower health-related quality of life (HRQOL). There are no data on the association between surgical and ICU factors and HRQOL in CHD survivors. This study assess the association between surgical and ICU factors and HRQOL in child and adolescent CHD survivors. DESIGN: This was a corollary study of the Pediatric Cardiac Quality of Life Inventory (PCQLI) Testing Study. SETTING: Eight pediatric hospitals participating in the PCQLI Study. PATIENTS: Patients in the study had the Fontan procedure, surgery for tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), and transposition of the great arteries (TGAs). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Surgical/ICU explanatory variables were collected by reviewing the medical records. Primary outcome variables (PCQLI Total patient and parent scores) and covariates were obtained from the Data Registry. General linear modeling was used to create the multivariable models. There were 572 patients included: mean ± sd of age 11.7 ± 2.9 years; CHD Fontan 45%, TOF/TGA 55%; number of cardiac surgeries 2 (1-9); and number of ICU admissions 3 (1-9). In multivariable models, lowest body temperature on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was negatively associated with patient total score (p < 0.05). The total number of CPB runs was negatively associated with parent-reported PCQLI Total score (p < 0.02). Cumulative days on an inotropic/vasoactive drug in the ICU was negatively associated with all patient-/parent-reported PCQLI scores (p < 0.04). Neurological deficit at discharge was negatively associated with parent-reported PCQLI total score (p < 0.02). The variance explained by these factors ranged from 24% to 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical/ICU factors, demographic, and medical care utilization variables explain a low-to-moderate amount of variation in HRQOL. Research is needed to determine whether modification of these surgical and ICU factors improves HRQOL, and to identify other factors that contribute to unexplained variability.

Republished: creating a safe, reliable hospital at night handover: a case study in implementation science.

BACKGROUND: We developed protocols to handover patients from day to hospital at night (H@N) teams. SETTING: NHS paediatric specialist hospital. METHOD: We observed four handover protocols (baseline, Phases 1, 2 and 3) over 2 years. A mixed-method study (observation, interviews, task analysis, prospective risk assessment, document and case note review) explored the impact of different protocols on performance. INTERVENTION: In Phase 1, a handover protocol was introduced to resolve problems with the baseline H@N handover. Following this intervention, two further revisions to the handover occurred, driven by staff feedback (Phases 2 and 3). RESULTS: Variations in performance between handover protocols on three process measures, start time efficiency, total length of handover, and number of distractions and interruptions, were identified. Univariate regression analysis showed statistically significant differences between handover protocols on two surrogate outcome measures: number of flagging omissions and the number of out of hours deteriorations (p=0.04 for Phase 3 vs Phase 1 for both measures (CI 1.04 to 4.08; CI 1.03 to 4.33), and for Phase 3 vs Phase 2 (p=0.006 and p=0.001 (CI 1.22 to 5.15; CI 1.62 to 9.0)), respectively). The Phase 1 and 2 handover protocols were effective at identifying patients whose clinical condition warranted review overnight. Performance on both surrogate outcome measures, length of handover and distractions, deteriorated in Phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: A carefully designed prioritisation process within the H@N handover can be effective at flagging acutely unwell patients. However, the protocol we introduced was unsustainable. In a complex healthcare system, sustainable implementation of new processes may be threatened by conflicting goals.

Creating a safe, reliable hospital at night handover: a case study in implementation science.

BACKGROUND: We developed protocols to handover patients from day to hospital at night (H@N) teams. SETTING: NHS paediatric specialist hospital. METHOD: We observed four handover protocols (baseline, Phases 1, 2 and 3) over 2 years. A mixed-method study (observation, interviews, task analysis, prospective risk assessment, document and case note review) explored the impact of different protocols on performance. INTERVENTION: In Phase 1, a handover protocol was introduced to resolve problems with the baseline H@N handover. Following this intervention, two further revisions to the handover occurred, driven by staff feedback (Phases 2 and 3). RESULTS: Variations in performance between handover protocols on three process measures, start time efficiency, total length of handover, and number of distractions and interruptions, were identified. Univariate regression analysis showed statistically significant differences between handover protocols on two surrogate outcome measures: number of flagging omissions and the number of out of hours deteriorations (p=0.04 for Phase 3 vs Phase 1 for both measures (CI 1.04 to 4.08; CI 1.03 to 4.33), and for Phase 3 vs Phase 2 (p=0.006 and p=0.001 (CI 1.22 to 5.15; CI 1.62 to 9.0)), respectively). The Phase 1 and 2 handover protocols were effective at identifying patients whose clinical condition warranted review overnight. Performance on both surrogate outcome measures, length of handover and distractions, deteriorated in Phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: A carefully designed prioritisation process within the H@N handover can be effective at flagging acutely unwell patients. However, the protocol we introduced was unsustainable. In a complex healthcare system, sustainable implementation of new processes may be threatened by conflicting goals.

Parent stress levels during children's hospital recovery after congenital heart surgery.

The hospitalization of a child for cardiac surgery is known to be a stressful experience for parents. However, little is known about the time course or the relationships between parental stress and the child's actual or perceived recovery. This research aimed to investigate pre- and postoperative parental stress and to examine some of the influencing factors during the postoperative period for children undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Parents of 211 children completed questionnaires and structured interviews preoperatively and on postoperative days 3, 5, 8, and 15. The stress of the parents remained moderate to high throughout their children's hospitalization regardless of the severity of illness. Parents' perceptions of their children's level of illness correlated with an objective measure of postoperative morbidity. There were few differences between mothers' and fathers' stress or their perceptions of their children's illness. Parents in more deprived communities and mothers born outside the UK had higher stress levels. These findings indicate the negative impact of children's surgery and intensive care hospitalization on parents. Better identification of parents at risk for high stress and specific interventions to improve parental support and coping are needed.

Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to improve the quality and safety of handover of patients from surgery to intensive care using the analogy of a Formula 1 pit stop and expertise from aviation. METHODS: A prospective intervention study measured the change in performance before and after the implementation of a new handover protocol that was developed through detailed discussions with a Formula 1 racing team and aviation training captains. Fifty (23 before and 27 after) postsurgery patient handovers were observed. Technical errors and information omissions were measured using checklists, and teamwork was scored using a Likert scale. Duration of the handover was also measured. RESULTS: The mean number of technical errors was reduced from 5.42 (95% CI +/-1.24) to 3.15 (95% CI +/-0.71), the mean number of information handover omissions was reduced from 2.09 (95% CI +/-1.14) to 1.07 (95% CI +/-0.55), and duration of handover was reduced from 10.8 min (95% CI +/-1.6) to 9.4 min (95% CI +/-1.29). Nine out of twenty-three (39%) precondition patients had more than one error in both technical and information handover prior to the new protocol, compared with three out of twnety-seven (11.5%) with the new handover. Regression analysis showed that the number of technical errors were significantly reduced with the new handover (t = -3.63, P < 0.001), and an interaction suggested that teamwork (t = 3.04, P = 0.004) had a different effect with the new handover protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the new handover protocol lead to improvements in all aspects of the handover. Expertise from other industries can be extrapolated to improve patient safety, and in particular, areas of medicine involving the handover of patients or information.