Development of the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC): Implementing 21 Components to Catalyze Statewide Improvement in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, 56 Illinois hospitals came together to form a unique learning collaborative, the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC). Our objectives are to provide an overview of the first three years of ISQIC focused on (1) how the collaborative was formed and funded, (2) the 21 strategies implemented to support quality improvement (QI), (3) collaborative sustainment, and (4) how the collaborative acts as a platform for innovative QI research. METHODS: ISQIC includes 21 components to facilitate QI that target the hospital, the surgical QI team, and the peri-operative microsystem. The components were developed from available evidence, a detailed needs assessment of the hospitals, reviewing experiences from prior surgical and non-surgical QI Collaboratives, and interviews with QI experts. The components comprise 5 domains: guided implementation (e.g., mentors, coaches, statewide QI projects), education (e.g., process improvement (PI) curriculum), hospital- and surgeon-level comparative performance reports (e.g., process, outcomes, costs), networking (e.g., forums to share QI experiences and best practices), and funding (e.g., for the overall program, pilot grants, and bonus payments for improvement). RESULTS: Through implementation of the 21 novel ISQIC components, hospitals were equipped to use their data to successfully implement QI initiatives and improve care. Formal (QI/PI) training, mentoring, and coaching were undertaken by the hospitals as they worked to implement solutions. Hospitals received funding for the program and were able to work together on statewide quality initiatives. Lessons learned at one hospital were shared with all participating hospitals through conferences, webinars, and toolkits to facilitate learning from each other with a common goal of making care better and safer for the surgical patient in Illinois. Over the first three years, surgical outcomes improved in Illinois. DISCUSSION: The first three years of ISQIC improved care for surgical patients across Illinois and allowed hospitals to see the value of participating in a surgical QI learning collaborative without having to make the initial financial investment themselves. Given the strong support and buy-in from the hospitals, ISQIC has continued beyond the initial three years and continues to support QI across Illinois hospitals.

Association Between Implementing Comprehensive Learning Collaborative Strategies in a Statewide Collaborative and Changes in Hospital Safety Culture.

Importance: Hospital safety culture remains a critical consideration when seeking to reduce medical errors and improve quality of care. Little is known regarding whether participation in a comprehensive, multicomponent, statewide quality collaborative is associated with changes in hospital safety culture. Objective: To examine whether implementation of a comprehensive, multicomponent, statewide surgical quality improvement collaborative is associated with changes in hospital safety culture. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, a 56-item validated survey covering 6 culture domains (teamwork, safety, operating room safety, working conditions, perceptions of management, and employee engagement), was administered to a random sample of physicians, nurses, operating room staff, administrators, and leaders across Illinois hospitals to assess hospital safety culture prior to launching a new statewide quality collaborative in 2015 and then again in 2017. The final analysis included 1024 respondents from 36 diverse hospitals, including major academic, community, and rural centers, enrolled in ISQIC (Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative). Exposures: Participation in a comprehensive, multicomponent statewide surgical quality improvement collaborative. Key components included enrollment in a common standardized data registry, formal quality and process improvement training, participation in collaborative-wide quality improvement projects, funding support for local projects, and guidance provided by surgeon mentors and process improvement coaches. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perception of hospital safety culture. Results: The overall survey response rate was 43.0% (580 of 1350 surveys) in 2015 and 39.0% (444 of 1138 surveys) in 2017 from 36 hospitals. Improvement occurred in all the overall domains, with significant improvement in teamwork climate (change, 3.9%; P = .03) and safety climate (change, 3.2%; P = .02). The largest improvements occurred in individual measures within domains, including physician-nurse collaboration (change, 7.2%; P = .004), reporting of concerns (change, 4.7%; P = .009), and reduction in communication breakdowns (change, 8.4%; P = .005). Hospitals with the lowest baseline safety culture experienced the largest improvements following collaborative implementation (change range, 11.1%-14.9% per domain; P < .05 for all). Although several hospitals experienced improvement in safety culture in 1 domain, most hospitals experienced improvement across several domains. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that hospital enrollment in a statewide quality improvement collaborative was associated with overall improvement in safety culture after implementing multiple learning collaborative strategies. Hospitals with the poorest baseline culture reported the greatest improvement following implementation of the collaborative.

Impact of Real-Time Clinical Decision Support on Blood Utilization and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Solid Tumor Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer are frequently hospitalized, and anemia is a common complication of cancer care. Transfusion is often required and commonly occurs above guideline-supported thresholds. It was hypothesized that an educational intervention, combined with real-time clinical decision support (CDS), would reduce blood utilization among hospitalized solid tumor cancer patients without adversely affecting outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective, historical control analysis was conducted comparing transfusion utilization among hospitalized solid tumor cancer patients before and after implementation of the educational intervention and CDS. The primary outcome was receipt of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Secondary outcomes included total RBC transfusions per 100 inpatient-days, readmission, outpatient transfusion within seven days of discharge, inpatient mortality, and odds of transfer to the ICU. RESULTS: The odds of receiving a transfusion were significantly reduced in the postintervention cohort (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, p = 0.005). Among patients receiving transfusion, there was no significant difference between groups in the number of RBC transfusions per 100 inpatient-days (incidence rate ratio = 0.87, p = 0.26). There were also no significant differences in readmission, outpatient transfusion within seven days of discharge, or inpatient mortality, though patients in the postintervention cohort had lower odds of ICU transfer (OR = 0.29, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The combined use of an educational intervention and CDS in a hospitalized solid tumor cancer patient population was associated with lower blood utilization, similar patient outcomes, and unchanged short-term outpatient transfusion requirements. Hospitals should consider similar interventions to work toward appropriate resource allocation and mitigation of transfusion-associated risk in this patient population.

Evaluation of a novel mentor program to improve surgical care for US hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a novel mentor program for 27 US surgeons, charged with improving quality at their respective hospitals, having been paired 1:1 with 27 surgeon mentors through a state-wide quality improvement (QI) initiative. DESIGN: Mixed-methods utilizing quantitative surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews. SETTING: The Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC) utilized a novel Mentor Program to guide surgeons new to QI. PARTICIPANTS: All mentor-mentee pairs received the survey (n = 27). Purposive sampling identified a subset of mentors (n = 8) and mentees (n = 4) for in-depth semi-structured interviews. INTERVENTION: Surgeons with expertise in QI mentored surgeons new to QI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) Quantitative: self-reported satisfaction with the mentor program; (ii) Qualitative: key themes suggesting actions and strategies to facilitate mentorship in QI. RESULTS: Mentees expressed satisfaction with the mentor program (n = 24, 88.9%) and agreed that mentorship is vital to ISQIC (n = 24, 88.9%). Analysis of interview data revealed four key themes: (i) nuances of data management, (ii) culture of quality and safety, (iii) mentor-mentee relationship and (iv) logistics. Strategies from these key themes include: utilize raw data for in-depth QI understanding, facilitate presentations to build QI support, identify opportunities for in-person meetings and establish scheduled conference calls. The mentor's role required sharing experiences and acting as a resource. The mentee's role required actively bringing questions and identifying barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Mentorship plays a vital role in advancing surgeon knowledge and engagement with QI in ISQIC. Key themes in mentorship reflect strategies to best facilitate mentorship, which may serve as a guide to other collaboratives.

Evaluation of a Mastery Learning Intervention on Hospitalists' Code Status Discussion Skills.

CONTEXT: Although code status discussions (CSD) occur frequently in the hospital setting, discussions often lack content necessary for informed decision making. Simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) has been used to improve clinical skills among resident physicians and may provide a novel way to improve hospitalists' CSD skills. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to develop and evaluate a CSD SBML intervention for hospitalists. METHODS: Twenty hospitalists were randomized to control vs. a CSD SBML intervention. Hospitalists conducted a baseline standardized patient encounter (pretest) that was scored using a 19-item CSD checklist and controls completed a repeat standardized patient encounter six months later (post-test). Intervention group hospitalists received at least one two-hour training session featuring deliberate practice and feedback and were expected to meet a minimum passing score (MPS) on the post-test of 84% set by an expert panel. RESULTS: Only two of the 20 hospitalists met the MPS at pretest. Seventy percentage of intervention hospitalists achieved the MPS after a single training session. Post-test median checklist scores were higher for intervention hospitalists compared with controls (16.5 vs. 12.0, P = 0.0001). Intervention hospitalists were significantly more likely to ask about previous experiences with end-of-life decision making (70% vs. 20%, P = 0.03), explore values/goals (100% vs. 50%, P = 0.01), ask permission to make a recommendation regarding code status (60% vs. 0%, P = 0.003), and align recommendations with patient values/goals (90% vs. 40%, P = 0.02) than controls. CONCLUSION: Few hospitalists demonstrated mastery of CSD skills at baseline; SBML was an effective way to improve these skills.

Survey of Provider Transfusion Practices for Oncology Patients in an Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized oncology patients receive care from a variety of professionals, each of whom plays a role in decisions related to blood transfusions. We sought to examine differences in transfusion practices based on professional role, years of experience, and patient clinical scenario. METHODS: We surveyed general medicine residents, hospitalists, and oncologists caring for inpatients at a large academic medical center between August 2013 and June 2014. Respondents reported transfusion practices in three different patient scenarios: a generally healthy patient, a patient with solid tumor malignancy, and a patient with hematologic malignancy. We also assessed rationale for transfusion practices. Bivariate comparisons of respondent characteristics and transfusion threshold were conducted using the Fisher exact test. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the relative relations among professional role, years in practice, clinical scenario, and transfusion threshold <7 g/dL. RESULTS: Of 158 physicians surveyed, 97 responded (61.4%). In bivariate analyses, fewer oncologists than residents or hospitalists used a threshold of <7 g/dL, but the result was significant for only one of three scenarios. The multivariate odds of transfusing at a threshold <7 g/dL were significantly higher among nononcologists (odds ratio [OR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.28). Residents and practitioners in practice for <4 years also were more likely to use a threshold <7 g/dL (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99-3.33). Providers were less likely to use a restrictive threshold when an underlying malignancy was present (solid tumor OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.64; hematologic malignancy OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion thresholds differed based on professional role, years in practice, and patient scenario. Further research is needed to determine the optimal transfusion threshold for oncology patients.

Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality.

OBJECTIVES: Adenoma-detection rates (ADRs) are associated with decreased interval colorectal cancer (CRC) rates and CRC mortality; quality improvement strategies focus on improving physician ADRs. The objective of this study was to examine the sequential effect of physician report cards and implementing institutional standards of practice (SOP) on ADRs. METHODS: Colonoscopy metrics were prospectively evaluated at a single academic medical center over a 23-month period (November 2012 to October 2014). ADRs were evaluated over three time periods-Period 1: Before initial report card distribution or SOP (November 2012 to March 2013); Period 2: After individualized report card distribution detailing physician and institutional ADRs (April 2013 to March 2014); Period 3: After second report card and SOP implementation (April 2014 to October 2014). The SOP required physicians to have a minimum 5-min withdrawal time in normal colonoscopies (WT) and an ADR minimum of 20%; those who did not meet benchmarks would require further training or endoscopy block time alterations. Only endoscopists averaging >15 colonoscopies/month were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Twenty endoscopists met the inclusion criteria, performing 12,894 screening colonoscopies over the 23-month period. Following report card distribution, physician ADRs increased by 3% (P<0.001). SOP implementation resulted in a further significant increase in mean physician ADR of 8% (P<0.0001). Overall, mean ADR increased by 11% from Period 1 to Period 3 (P<0.0001). All physicians met the minimum 20% ADR benchmark during Period 3. Although ADRs significantly correlated with WT overall (r=0.45; 95% CI 0.01, 0.75; P=0.04), mean WT did not significantly increase from Period 1 to Period 3. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that distributing colonoscopy quality report cards resulted in a significant ADR improvement. Further, we report evidence that implementing SOP significantly improved ADRs beyond report card distribution and resulted in all endoscopists meeting minimum benchmarks. This suggests that report cards and SOPs may have an additive effect in improving colonoscopy quality, and their implementation in endoscopy labs should be encouraged.

Assessing Interprofessional Teamwork in Inpatient Medical Oncology Units.

PURPOSE: Teamwork is important to providing safe and effective care for hospitalized patients with cancer; however, few studies have evaluated teamwork in this setting. METHODS: We surveyed all nurses, residents, hospitalists, and oncology physicians in oncology units at a large urban teaching hospital from September to November 2012. Respondents rated teamwork using a validated instrument (Safety Attitudes Questionnaire; scale, 0 to 100) and rated the quality of collaboration they had experienced with other professionals using a 5-point ordinal response scale (1, very low quality; 5, very high quality). Respondents also rated potential barriers to collaboration using a 4-point ordinal response scale (1, not at all a barrier; 4, major barrier). We compared ratings by professionals using analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Overall, 129 (67%) of 193 eligible participants completed the survey. Teamwork scores differed across professional types, with nurses providing the lowest ratings (69.7) and residents providing the highest (81.9; ANOVA P = .01). Ratings of collaboration with nurses were high across all types of professionals. Ratings of collaboration with physicians varied significantly by professional type (P ≤ .02), with nurses giving lower ratings of collaboration with all physician types. Similarly, perceived barriers to collaboration differed by professional type, with nurses perceiving the biggest barrier to be negative attitudes regarding the importance of communication. Oncologists did not perceive any of the listed options as major barriers to collaboration. CONCLUSION: In inpatient oncology units, discrepancies exist between nurses' and physicians' ratings of teamwork and collaboration. Oncologists seem to be unaware that teamwork is suboptimal in this setting.

Comparison of traditional trigger tool to data warehouse based screening for identifying hospital adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Research supports medical record review using screening triggers as the optimal method to detect hospital adverse events (AE), yet the method is labour-intensive. METHOD: This study compared a traditional trigger tool with an enterprise data warehouse (EDW) based screening method to detect AEs. We created 51 automated queries based on 33 traditional triggers from prior research, and then applied them to 250 randomly selected medical patients hospitalised between 1 September 2009 and 31 August 2010. Two physicians each abstracted records from half the patients using a traditional trigger tool and then performed targeted abstractions for patients with positive EDW queries in the complementary half of the sample. A third physician confirmed presence of AEs and assessed preventability and severity. RESULTS: Traditional trigger tool and EDW based screening identified 54 (22%) and 53 (21%) patients with one or more AE. Overall, 140 (56%) patients had one or more positive EDW screens (total 366 positive screens). Of the 137 AEs detected by at least one method, 86 (63%) were detected by a traditional trigger tool, 97 (71%) by EDW based screening and 46 (34%) by both methods. Of the 11 total preventable AEs, 6 (55%) were detected by traditional trigger tool, 7 (64%) by EDW based screening and 2 (18%) by both methods. Of the 43 total serious AEs, 28 (65%) were detected by traditional trigger tool, 29 (67%) by EDW based screening and 14 (33%) by both. CONCLUSIONS: We found relatively poor agreement between traditional trigger tool and EDW based screening with only approximately a third of all AEs detected by both methods. A combination of complementary methods is the optimal approach to detecting AEs among hospitalised patients.

Assessment of teamwork during structured interdisciplinary rounds on medical units.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) provide a means to assemble hospital team members and improve collaboration. Little is known about teamwork during IDR. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and characterize teamwork during IDR. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Six medical units which had implemented structured interdisciplinary rounds (SIDR). MEASUREMENTS: We adapted the Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) tool, a behaviorally anchored rating scale shown to be reliable and valid in surgical settings. OTAS provides scores ranging from 0 to 6 (0 = problematic behavior; 6 = exemplary behavior) across 5 domains (communication, coordination, cooperation/backup behavior, leadership, and monitoring/situational awareness) and for prespecified subteams. Two researchers conducted direct observations using the adapted OTAS tool. RESULTS: We conducted 7-8 independent observations for each unit (total = 44) and 20 joint observations. Inter-rater reliability was excellent at the unit level (Spearman's rho = 0.75), and good across domains (rho = 0.53-0.68) and subteams (rho = 0.53-0.76) with the exception of the physician subteam, for which it was poor (rho = 0.35). Though teamwork scores were generally high, we found differences across units, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) 4.5 (3.9-4.9) for the lowest and 5.4 (5.3-5.5) for the highest performing unit (P < 0.01). Domain scores differed, with leadership receiving the lowest (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.6-5.3]), and cooperation/backup behavior and monitoring/situational awareness receiving highest scores (median [IQR] = 5.4 [5.0-5.5] and 5.4 [5.0-5.7]). Differences across subteams were of borderline significance (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The adapted OTAS instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability for assessing teamwork during SIDR across units, domains, and most subteams. Variation in performance suggests a need to improve consistency of teamwork and emphasizes the importance of leadership.

Structured interdisciplinary rounds in a medical teaching unit: improving patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential to providing safe hospital care. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of an intervention designed to improve interdisciplinary collaboration and lower the rate of adverse events (AEs). METHODS: The study was a controlled trial of an intervention, Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds, implemented in 1 of 2 similar medical teaching units in a tertiary care academic hospital. The intervention combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We conducted a retrospective medical record review evaluating 370 randomly selected patients admitted to the intervention and control units (n = 185 each) in the 24 weeks after and 185 admitted to the intervention unit in the 24 weeks before the implementation of Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds (N = 555). Medical records were screened for AEs. Two hospitalists confirmed the presence of AEs and assessed their preventability and severity in a masked fashion. We used multivariable Poisson regression models to compare the adjusted incidence of AEs in the intervention unit to that in concurrent and historic control units. RESULTS: The rate of AEs was 3.9 per 100 patient-days for the intervention unit compared with 7.2 and 7.7 per 100 patient-days, respectively, for the concurrent and historic control units (adjusted rate ratio, 0.54; P = .005; and 0.51; P = .001). The rate of preventable AEs was 0.9 per 100 patient-days for the intervention unit compared with 2.8 and 2.1 per 100 patient-days for the concurrent and historic control units (adjusted rate ratio, 0.27; P = .002; and 0.37; P = .02). The low number of AEs rated as serious or life-threatening precluded statistical analysis for differences in rates of events classified as serious or serious and preventable. CONCLUSION: Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds significantly reduced the adjusted rate of AEs in a medical teaching unit.