Association Between Pandemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 Public Health Measures and Reduction in Critical Care Utilization Across ICUs in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has disrupted critical care services across the world. In anticipation of surges in the need for critical care services, governments implemented "lockdown" measures to preserve and create added critical care capacity. Herein, we describe the impact of lockdown measures on the utilization of critical care services and patient outcomes compared with nonlockdown epochs in a large integrated health region. DESIGN: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seventeen adult ICUs across 14 acute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: All adult (age ≥ 15 yr) patients admitted to any study ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main exposure was ICU admission during "lockdown" occurring between March 16, 2020, and June 30, 2020. This period was compared with two nonpandemic control periods: "year prior" (March 16, 2019, to June 30, 2019) and "pre lockdown" immediately prior (November 30, 2019, to March 15, 2020). The primary outcome was the number of ICU admissions. Secondary outcomes included the following: daily measures of ICU utilization, ICU duration of stay, avoidable delay in ICU discharge, and occupancy; and patient outcomes. Mixed multilevel negative binomial regression and interrupted time series regression were used to compare rates of ICU admissions between periods. Multivariable regressions were used to compare patient outcomes between periods. During the lockdown, there were 3,649 ICU admissions (34.1 [8.0] ICU admissions/d), compared with 4,125 (38.6 [9.3]) during the prelockdown period and 3,919 (36.6 [8.7]) during the year prior. Mean bed occupancy declined significantly during the lockdown compared with the nonpandemic periods (78.7%, 95.9%, and 96.4%; p < 0.001). Avoidable ICU discharge delay also decreased significantly (42.0%, 53.2%, and 58.3%; p < 0.001). During the lockdown, patients were younger, had fewer comorbid diseases, had higher acuity, and were more likely to be medical admissions compared with the nonpandemic periods. Adjusted ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly lower during the lockdown compared with nonpandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown resulted in substantial changes to ICU utilization, including a reduction in admissions, occupancy, patient lengths of stay, and mortality.

A study of the effectiveness of performance-focused methodology for improved outcomes in Alberta public healthcare.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a performance-focused methodology for engaging multidisciplinary, frontline healthcare teams in making behavioural changes that improve patient care and health system efficiency. Results include significant declines in average length of stay in hospital and waiting time for surgery, and a dramatic increase in early patient ambulation. Performance-focused methodology using key performance indicators, targets, measurement, and ongoing feedback, supported by non-monetary incentives, can quickly improve healthcare outcomes.

The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project: a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways.

BACKGROUND: The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project developed a new evidence-based clinical pathway (NCP) for total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement. The aim was to facilitate the delivery of services in a timely and cost-effective manner while achieving the highest quality of care for the patient across the full continuum of care from patient referral to an orthopedic surgeon through surgery, recovery, and rehabilitation. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the study design, rationale, and execution of this project as a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of alternative clinical pathways. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial study design was used to evaluate the NCP compared with the standard of care (SOC) for these procedures. The pragmatic study design was selected as a rigorous approach to produce high quality evidence suitable for informing decisions between relevant interventions in real clinical practice. The NCP was evaluated in three of the nine regional health authorities (RHAs) in Alberta with dedicated central intake clinics offering multidisciplinary care teams, constituting 80 percent of THR and TKR surgeries performed annually in Alberta. Patients were identified in the offices of twenty orthopedic surgeons who routinely performed THR or TKR surgeries. Evaluation outcome measures were based on the six dimensions of the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health (AQMH): acceptability, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and safety. Data were collected prospectively through patient self-completed questionnaires at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery, ambulatory and inpatient chart reviews, and electronic administrative data. RESULTS: The trial design was successful in establishing similar groups for rigorous evaluation. Of the 4,985 patients invited to participate, 69 percent of patients consented. A total of 3,434 patients were randomized: 1,712 to SOC and 1,722 to the NCP. The baseline characteristics of patients in the two study arms, including demographics, comorbidity as measured by CDS and exposure to pain medications, and health-related quality of life, as measured by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Short Form-36, were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project demonstrates the feasibility and advantages of applying a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to ascertain comparative effectiveness. This is a model for health technology assessment that incorporates how clinical pathways can be effectively evaluated.

The Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute: creating sustainable accountability through collaboration, relevant measurement and timely feedback.

A robust accountability strategy is at the core of creating a safe, efficient, effective and sustainable system of healthcare. The commitment to be accountable must extend far beyond the providers of care to include every person involved in the funding, administration, delivery and support of patient care (both directly and indirectly). The Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute has fostered a new system that will measure, analyze and give valuable feedback to all stakeholders in all three essential domains of system accountability: access, quality and cost. The Institute has employed four key strategies to create system accountability in a hip and knee pilot project: collaboration between stakeholders in defining goals and measures that matter to them; the use of "world's best evidence" to drive decisions and to establish goals and benchmarks to measure against; collection of useful data and its analysis to inform improvement decisions; and timely feedback of relevant data in domains of interest to stakeholders on system outputs in the key domains. While these strategies have not yet been proven to be effective in creating the desired "culture of accountability," they are having a significant clinical impact and do have potential to lead to that outcome.