Controlling Hypertension through Education and Coaching in Kidney Disease (CHECK-D): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 30 million Americans. Early management focused on blood pressure (BP) control decreases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Less than 40% of patients with CKD achieve recommended BP targets due to many barriers. These barriers include a lack of understanding of the implications of their diagnosis and how to optimise their health.This cluster randomised control trial hypothesises that the combination of early primary care CKD education, and motivational interviewing (MI)-based health coach support, will improve patient behaviours aligned with BP control by increasing patient knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation. The results will aid in sustainable interventions for future patient-centric education and coaching support to improve quality and outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5. Outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5 receiving the intervention will be compared with similar patients within a control group. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) and systems methodologies will be used to optimise resource neutrality and leverage existing technology to support implementation and future dissemination. The innovative approach of this research focuses on the importance of a multidisciplinary team, including off-site patient coaching, that can intervene early in the CKD care continuum by supporting patients with education and coaching. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will test impact of BP control when clinician-delivered education is followed by 12 months of MI-based health coaching. We will compare outcomes in 350 patients with CKD stages 3-5 between intervention and control groups in primary care. CQI and systems methodologies will optimise education and coaching for future implementation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Boards (IRBMED) HUM00136011, HUM00150672 and SITE00000092 and the results of the study will be published on ClinicalTrials.gov, in peer-reviewed journals, as well as conference abstracts, posters and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04087798.

Development and validation of an A3 problem-solving assessment tool and self-instructional package for teachers of quality improvement in healthcare.

PURPOSE: A3 problem solving is part of the Lean management approach to quality improvement (QI). However, few tools are available to assess A3 problem-solving skills. The authors sought to develop an assessment tool for problem-solving A3s with an accompanying self-instruction package and to test agreement in assessments made by individuals who teach A3 problem solving. METHODS: After reviewing relevant literature, the authors developed an A3 assessment tool and self-instruction package over five improvement cycles. Lean experts and individuals from two institutions with QI proficiency and experience teaching QI provided iterative feedback on the materials. Tests of inter-rater agreement were conducted in cycles 3, 4 and 5. The final assessment tool was tested in a study involving 12 raters assessing 23 items on six A3s that were modified to enable testing a range of scores. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for overall assessment of an A3 (rater's mean on 23 items per A3 compared across 12 raters and 6 A3s) was 0.89 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98), indicating excellent reliability. For the 20 items with appreciable variation in scores across A3s, ICCs ranged from 0.41 to 0.97, indicating fair to excellent reliability. Raters from two institutions scored items similarly (mean ratings of 2.10 and 2.13, p=0.57). Physicians provided marginally higher ratings than QI professionals (mean ratings of 2.17 and 2.00, p=0.003). Raters averaged completing the self-instruction package in 1.5 hours, then rated six A3s in 2.0 hours. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of the reliability of a tool to assess healthcare QI project proposals that use the A3 problem-solving approach. The tool also demonstrated evidence of measurement, content and construct validity. QI educators and practitioners can use the free online materials to assess learners' A3s, provide formative and summative feedback on QI project proposals and enhance their teaching.

Integrating Lean Thinking and Implementation Science Determinants Checklists for Quality Improvement: A Scoping Review.

It is not known how often lean tools and implementation determinants frameworks or checklists are used concurrently in health care quality improvement activities. The authors systematically reviewed the literature for studies that used a lean tool along with an implementation science determinants framework (January 1999 through August 2018). Seven studies (8 publications) were identified, inclusive of 2 protocols and 6 research articles across multiple continents. All included studies used the consolidated framework for implementation research as their implementation science determinants framework. Lean tools included in more than 1 publication were process mapping (4 publications), process redesign (3 publications), and 5S standardization (2 publications). Only 1 study proposed using a lean tool concurrently with an implementation science determinants framework in the design and execution of the QI project. Few published studies utilize both an implementation science determinants framework or checklist and 1 or more lean tool in their study design.

ILCOR Scientific Knowledge Gaps and Clinical Research Priorities for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care: A Consensus Statement.

Despite significant advances in the field of resuscitation science, important knowledge gaps persist. Current guidelines for resuscitation are based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, which includes treatment recommendations supported by the available evidence. The writing group developed this consensus statement with the goal of focusing future research by addressing the knowledge gaps identified during and after the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation evidence evaluation process. Key publications since the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations are referenced, along with known ongoing clinical trials that are likely to affect future guidelines. © 2018 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ILCOR Scientific Knowledge Gaps and Clinical Research Priorities for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care: A Consensus Statement.

Despite significant advances in the field of resuscitation science, important knowledge gaps persist. Current guidelines for resuscitation are based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, which includes treatment recommendations supported by the available evidence. The writing group developed this consensus statement with the goal of focusing future research by addressing the knowledge gaps identified during and after the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation evidence evaluation process. Key publications since the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations are referenced, along with known ongoing clinical trials that are likely to affect future guidelines.

Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

The process for evaluating the resuscitation science has evolved considerably over the past 2 decades. The current process, which incorporates the use of the GRADE methodology, culminated in the 2015 CoSTR publication, which in turn will inform the international resuscitation councils' guideline development processes. Over the next few years, the process will continue to evolve as ILCOR moves toward a more continuous evaluation of the resuscitation science.

Lean management in academic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Lean is a management system designed to enhance productivity by eliminating waste. Surgical practice offers many opportunities for improving efficiency. Our objective was to determine whether systematic implementation of lean thinking in an academic otolaryngology operating room improves efficiency and profitability and preserves team morale and educational opportunities. STUDY DESIGN: In an 18-month prospective quasi-experimental study, a multidisciplinary task force systematically implemented lean thinking within an otolaryngology operating room of an academic health system. Operating room turnover time and turnaround time were measured during a baseline period; an observer-effect period in which workers were made aware that their efficiency was being measured but before implementing lean changes; and an intervention period after redesign principles had been used. The impact on teamwork, morale, and surgical resident education were measured during the baseline and intervention periods through validated surveys. A profit model was applied to estimate the financial implications of the study. RESULTS: There was no difference between the baseline and observer-effect periods of the study for turnover time (p = 0.98) or turnaround time (p = 0.20). During the intervention period, the mean turnover time and turnaround time were significantly shorter than during the baseline period (29 vs 38 minutes; p < 0.001 and 69 vs 89 minutes; p < 0.001, respectively). The composite morale score suggested improved morale after implementation (p = 0.011). Educational metrics were unchanged before and after implementation. The annual opportunity revenue for the involved operating room is $330,000; when extrapolated throughout the operating rooms, lean thinking could create 6,500 hours of capacity annually. CONCLUSIONS: Application of lean management techniques to a single operating room and surgical service improved operating room efficiency and morale, sustained resident education, and can provide considerable financial gains when scaled to an entire academic surgical suite.