Scalability and Sustainability of a Surgical Infection Prevention Program in Low-Income Environments.

Importance: Surgical infections are a major cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality, particularly in low-resource settings. Clean Cut, a 6-month quality improvement program developed by the global nonprofit organization Lifebox, has demonstrated improvements in postoperative infectious complications. However, the pilot program required intense external programmatic and resource support. Objective: To examine the improvement in adherence to infection prevention and control standards and rates of postoperative infections in hospitals in the Clean Cut program after implementation strategies were updated and program execution was refined. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated and refined the Clean Cut implementation strategy to enhance scalability based on a qualitative study of its pilot phase, including formalizing programmatic and educational materials, building an automated data entry and analysis platform, and reorganizing hospital-based team composition. Clean Cut was introduced from January 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, in 7 Ethiopian hospitals that had not previously participated in the program. Prospective data initiated on arrival in the operating room were collected, and patients were followed up through hospital discharge and with 30-day follow-up telephone calls. Exposure: Implementation of the refined Clean Cut program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI); secondary outcomes were adherence to 6 infection prevention standards, mortality, hospital length of stay, and other infectious complications. Results: A total of 3364 patients (mean [SD] age, 26.5 [38.0] years; 2196 [65.3%] female) from 7 Ethiopian hospitals were studied (1575 at baseline and 1789 after intervention). After controlling for confounders, the relative risk of SSIs was reduced by 34.0% after program implementation (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P < .001). Appropriate Surgical Safety Checklist use increased from 16.3% to 43.0% (P < .001), surgeon hand and patient skin antisepsis improved from 46.0% to 66.0% (P < .001), and timely antibiotic administration improved from 17.8% to 39.0% (P < .001). Surgical instrument (38.7% vs 10.2%), linen sterility (35.5% vs 12.8%), and gauze counting (89.2% vs 82.5%; P < .001 for all comparisons) also improved significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: A modified implementation strategy for the Clean Cut program focusing on reduced external resource and programmatic input from Lifebox, structured education and training materials, and wider hospital engagement resulted in outcomes that matched our pilot study, with improved adherence to recognized infection prevention standards resulting in a reduction in SSIs. The demonstration of scalability reinforces the value of this SSI prevention program.

Addressing knowledge gaps in Surgical Safety Checklist use: statistical process control analysis of a surgical quality improvement programme in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist reduces morbidity and mortality after surgery, but uptake remains challenging. In particular, low-income countries have been found to have lower rates of checklist use compared with high-income countries. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of educational workshops on Surgical Safety Checklist use implemented as part of a quality improvement initiative in five hospitals in Ethiopia that had variable experience with the Surgical Safety Checklist. METHODS: From April 2019 to September 2020, each hospital implemented a 6-month surgical quality improvement programme, which included a Surgical Safety Checklist workshop. Statistical process control methodology was used to understand the variation in Surgical Safety Checklist compliance before and after workshops and a time-series analysis was performed using population-averaged generalized estimating equation Poisson regression. Checklist compliance was defined as correctly completing a sign in, timeout, and sign out. Incidence rate ratios of correct checklist use pre- and post-intervention were calculated and the change in mean weekly compliance was predicted. RESULTS: Checklist compliance data were obtained from 2767 operations (1940 (70 per cent) pre-intervention and 827 (30 per cent) post-intervention). Mean weekly checklist compliance improved from 27.3 to 41.2 per cent (mean difference 13.9 per cent, P = 0.001; incidence rate ratio 1.51, P = 0.001). Hospitals with higher checklist compliance at baseline had the greatest overall improvements in compliance, more than 50 per cent over pre-intervention, while low-performing hospitals showed no improvement. CONCLUSION: Surgical Safety Checklist workshops improved checklist compliance in hospitals with some experience with its use. Workshops had little effect in hospitals unfamiliar with the Surgical Safety Checklist, emphasizing the importance of multifactorial interventions and culture-change approaches. In receptive facilities, short workshops can accelerate behaviour change.

Patient and clinician experience of a serious illness conversation guide in oncology: A descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Oncology guidelines recommend earlier communication with patients about prognosis and goals-of-care in serious illness. However, current evidence leaves gaps in our understanding of the experience of these conversations. This analysis evaluates the patient and clinician experience of a conversation using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG). DESIGN/SETTING: Secondary analysis from a cluster-randomized clinical trial in a northeastern cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and patients with advanced cancer who received the intervention. INTERVENTION: SICG, clinician training, systems-changes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The patient questionnaire assessed perceptions of the conversation and impact on anxiety, hopefulness, peacefulness, sense of control over medical decisions, closeness with their clinician, and behaviors. The clinician questionnaire assessed feasibility, acceptability, and impact on satisfaction in their role. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 clinicians and 163 patients; 41 clinicians and 118 patients had a SICG discussion. Most patients described the conversation as worthwhile (79%) and reported no change or improvement in their sense of peacefulness, hopefulness, and anxiety (on average 79%); 56% reported feeling closer with their clinician. Qualitative patient data described positive behavior changes, including enhanced planning for future care and increased focus on personal priorities. Nearly 90% of clinicians agreed that the SICG facilitated timely, effective conversations, and 70% reported increased satisfaction in their role. CONCLUSION: Conversations using a SICG were feasible, acceptable, and were associated with positive experiences for both patients and clinicians in oncology in ways that align with national recommendations for serious illness communication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01786811 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01786811.

Correction to: Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers.

In the original version of the article, Dominique Vervoort's last name was misspelled. It is correct as reflected here. The original article has been updated.

Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) has been shown to reduce perioperative complications across global health systems. We sought to assess perceptions of the SSC and suggestions for its improvement among medical students, trainees, and early career providers. METHODS: From July to September 2019, a survey assessing perceptions of the SSC was disseminated through InciSioN, the International Student Surgical Network comprising medical students, trainees, and early career providers pursuing surgery. Individuals with ≥2 years of independent practice after training were excluded. Respondents were categorized according to any clinical versus solely non-clinical SSC exposure. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between clinical/non-clinical exposure and promoting future use of the SSC, adjusting for potential confounders/mediators: training level, human development index, and first perceptions of the SSC. Thematic analysis was conducted on suggestions for SSC improvement. RESULTS: Respondent participation rate was 24%. Three hundred and eighteen respondents were included in final analyses; 215 (67%) reported clinical exposure and 190 (60%) were promoters of future SSC use. Clinical exposure was associated with greater odds of promoting future SSC use (aOR 1.81 95% CI [1.03-3.19], p = 0.039). A greater proportion of promoters reported "Improved Operating Room Communication" as a goal of the SSC (0.21 95% CI [0.15-0.27]-vs.-0.12 [0.06-0.17], p = 0.031), while non-promoters reported the SSC goals were "Not Well Understood" (0.08 95% CI [0.03-0.12]-vs.-0.03 [0.01-0.05], p = 0.032). Suggestions for SSC improvement emphasized context-specific adaptability and earlier formal training. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical exposure to the SSC was associated with promoting its future use. Earlier formal clinical training may improve perceptions and future use among medical students, trainees, and early career providers.

Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on Health Care Utilization at the End of Life for Patients with Cancer.

Objectives: To determine the effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on health care utilization at the end of life in oncology. Design: Analysis of the secondary outcome of health care utilization as part of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that ran from 2012 to 2016. Clinicians in the intervention group received training, coaching, and system supports to have discussions with patients using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG); clinicians in the control arm followed usual care. Setting/Subject: Patients with advanced cancer who died within two years of enrollment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Measurement: Health care utilization was abstracted from the electronic medical record using the National Quality Forum (NQF)-endorsed indicators of aggressive cancer care at the end of life and scored from 0 to 6 (one point for each aggressive indicator); t tests and chi-square tests were used to determine differences between intervention and control patients. Results: The charts of 159 patients who died were reviewed. Neither the main outcome of mean number of aggressive indicators (0.9 vs. 0.9, p = 0.84) nor the proportion of patients with any aggressive care (49% intervention [95% CI: 40-57] vs. 54% control [95% CI: 42-67]) differed between patients in the intervention and control groups. Conclusion: In this analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial of the Serious Illness Care Program, intervention and control patients had similar end-of-life health care utilization as measured by the mean number of NQF-endorsed indicators. Future research efforts should focus on studying the strategies by which communication about patients' prognosis, values, and goals leads to personalized care plans.

Developing Process Maps as a Tool for a Surgical Infection Prevention Quality Improvement Initiative in Resource-Constrained Settings.

BACKGROUND: Surgical infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). To improve adherence to critical perioperative infection prevention standards, we developed Clean Cut, a checklist-based quality improvement program to improve compliance with best practices. We hypothesized that process mapping infection prevention activities can help clinicians identify strategies for improving surgical safety. STUDY DESIGN: We introduced Clean Cut at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. Infection prevention standards included skin antisepsis, ensuring a sterile field, instrument decontamination/sterilization, prophylactic antibiotic administration, routine swab/gauze counting, and use of a surgical safety checklist. Processes were mapped by a visiting surgical fellow and local operating theater staff to facilitate the development of contextually relevant solutions; processes were reassessed for improvements. RESULTS: Process mapping helped identify barriers to using alcohol-based hand solution due to skin irritation, inconsistent administration of prophylactic antibiotics due to variable delivery outside of the operating theater, inefficiencies in assuring sterility of surgical instruments through lack of confirmatory measures, and occurrences of retained surgical items through inappropriate guidelines, staffing, and training in proper routine gauze counting. Compliance with most processes improved significantly following organizational changes to align tasks with specific process goals. CONCLUSIONS: Enumerating the steps involved in surgical infection prevention using a process mapping technique helped identify opportunities for improving adherence and plotting contextually relevant solutions, resulting in superior compliance with antiseptic standards. Simplifying these process maps into an adaptable tool could be a powerful strategy for improving safe surgery delivery in LMICs.

Surgeons' Perspectives on Avoiding Nonbeneficial Treatments in Seriously Ill Older Patients with Surgical Emergencies: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decisions for seriously ill older patients with surgical emergencies are highly complex. Measuring the benefits of burdensome treatments in this context is fraught with uncertainty. Little is known about how surgeons formulate treatment decisions to avoid nonbeneficial surgery, or engage in preoperative conversations about end-of-life (EOL) care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe how surgeons approach such discussions, and to identify modifiable factors to reduce nonbeneficial surgery near the EOL. DESIGN: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit a national sample of emergency general surgeons. Semistructured interviews were conducted between February and May 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Three independent coders performed qualitative coding using NVivo software (NVivo version 10.0, QSR International). Content analysis was used to identify factors important to surgical decision making and EOL communication. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons were interviewed. Participants felt responsible for conducting EOL conversations with seriously ill older patients and their families before surgery to prevent nonbeneficial treatments. However, wide differences in prognostic estimates among surgeons, inadequate data about postoperative quality of life (QOL), patients and surrogates who were unprepared for EOL conversations, variation in perceptions about the role of palliative care, and time constraints are contributors to surgeons providing nonbeneficial operations. Surgeons reported performing operations they knew would not benefit the patient to give the family time to come to terms with the patient's demise. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency general surgeons feel responsible for having preoperative discussions about EOL care with seriously ill older patients to avoid nonbenefical surgery. However, surgeons identified multiple factors that undermine adequate communication and lead to nonbeneficial surgery.

Recommendations for Best Communication Practices to Facilitate Goal-concordant Care for Seriously Ill Older Patients With Emergency Surgical Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To address the need for improved communication practices to facilitate goal-concordant care in seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Improved communication is increasingly recognized as a central element in providing goal-concordant care and reducing health care utilization and costs among seriously ill older patients. Given high rates of surgery in the last weeks of life, high risk of poor outcomes after emergency operations in these patients, and barriers to quality communication in the acute setting, we sought to create a framework to support surgeons in communicating with seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 23 national leaders was convened for a 1-day conference at Harvard Medical School to provide input on concept, content, format, and usability of a communication framework. A prototype framework was created. RESULTS: Participants supported the concept of a structured approach to communication in these scenarios, and delineated 9 key elements of a framework: (1) formulating prognosis, (2) creating a personal connection, (3) disclosing information regarding the acute problem in the context of the underlying illness, (4) establishing a shared understanding of the patient's condition, (5) allowing silence and dealing with emotion, (6) describing surgical and palliative treatment options, (7) eliciting patient's goals and priorities, (8) making a treatment recommendation, and (9) affirming ongoing support for the patient and family. CONCLUSIONS: Communication with seriously ill patients in the acute setting is difficult. The proposed communication framework may assist surgeons in delivering goal-concordant care for high-risk patients.