Quality improvement collaborative for improving patient care delivery in Argentine public health sector intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: The demand for healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic was excessive for less-resourced settings, with intensive care units (ICUs) taking the heaviest toll. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to achieve adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) use in 90% of patient encounters, to reach 90% compliance with objectives of patient flow (OPF) and to provide emotional support tools to 90% of healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study with an interrupted time-series design in 14 ICUs in Argentina. We randomly selected adult critically ill patients admitted from July 2020 to July 2021 and active HCWs in the same period. We implemented a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) with a baseline phase (BP) and an intervention phase (IP). The QIC included learning sessions, periods of action and improvement cycles (plan-do-study-act) virtually coached by experts via platform web-based activities. The main study outcomes encompassed the following elements: proper utilisation of PPE, compliance with nine specific OPF using daily goal sheets through direct observations and utilisation of a web-based tool for tracking emotional well-being among HCWs. RESULTS: We collected 7341 observations of PPE use (977 in BP and 6364 in IP) with an improvement in adequate use from 58.4% to 71.9% (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29, p<0.001). We observed 7428 patient encounters to evaluate compliance with 9 OPF (879 in BP and 6549 in IP) with an improvement in compliance from 53.9% to 67% (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32, p<0.001). The results showed that HCWs did not use the support tool for self-mental health evaluation as much as expected. CONCLUSION: A QIC was effective in improving healthcare processes and adequate PPE use, even in the context of a pandemic, indicating the possibility of expanding QIC networks nationwide to improve overall healthcare delivery. The limited reception of emotional support tools requires further analyses.

Quality improvement collaborative to optimize heart failure care in patients from a network of clinics in Argentina during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health-care costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of HF, the quality of care remains suboptimal. Our aim was to increase the use a care bundle in 50% of enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and discharge and to reduce their readmission for HF causes by 10%. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study in eight hospitals in Argentina to evaluate the effect of a quality improvement intervention on the use of an HF care bundle in patients with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III. The HF bundle of care included medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, and predischarge examinations. Training and follow-up of multidisciplinary teams in each center were performed through learning sessions and plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Data collectors reviewed bundle compliance in the health records of recruited patients after their hospital discharge and verified readmissions through phone calls to patients within 30-40 days after discharge. We recruited 200 patients (83 before and 127 during the intervention phase), and bundle compliance increased from 9.6% to 28.3% [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (8.46; 1.63); P = .002]. Despite a slow improvement during the first months, bundle compliance gained momentum near the end of the intervention surpassing 80%. We observed a non-significant decreased readmission rate within 30 days of discharge due to HF in the postintervention period [8.4% vs. 5.5%, odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI (1.88; 0.21); P = .410]. Qualitative analysis showed that members of the intervention teams acknowledged the improvement of work organization and standardization of care, teamwork, shared mental model, and health record completeness as well as the utility of training fellows. Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, better care of patients with HF NYHA Class II-III was possible through simple interventions and collaborative work. Graphical abstract.

Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88).  Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.