Alert-Triggered Patient Education Versus Nurse Feedback for Nonadministered Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Doses: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Many hospitalized patients are not administered prescribed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Methods and Results In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, all adult non-intensive care units (10 medical, 6 surgical) in 1 academic hospital were randomized to either a real-time, electronic alert-triggered, patient-centered education bundle intervention or nurse feedback intervention to evaluate their effectiveness for reducing nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the proportion of nonadministered doses of prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were proportions of nonadministered doses stratified by nonadministration reasons (patient refusal, other). To test our primary hypothesis that both interventions would reduce nonadministration, we compared outcomes pre- versus postintervention within each cohort. Secondary hypotheses were tested comparing the effectiveness between cohorts. Of 11 098 patient visits, overall dose nonadministration declined significantly after the interventions (13.4% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57-0.71]). Nonadministration decreased significantly (P<0.001) in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 12.2% versus 7.4% (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.48-0.66]), and nurse feedback, 14.7% versus 11.2% (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.84]). Patient refusal decreased significantly in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 7.3% versus 3.7% (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.58]), and nurse feedback, 9.5% versus 7.1% (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59-0.86]). No differential effect occurred on medical versus surgical units. The patient-centered education bundle was significantly more effective in reducing all nonadministered (P=0.03) and refused doses (P=0.003) compared with nurse feedback (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.0-1.61]; P=0.03 for interaction). Conclusions Information technology strategies like the alert-triggered, targeted patient-centered education bundle, and nurse-focused audit and feedback can improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis administration. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03367364.

Effectiveness of Healthcare Delivery, Quality, and Safety a Patient Education Bundle on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Administration by Sex.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent cause of preventable harm among hospitalized patients. Many prescribed prophylaxis doses are not administered despite supporting evidence. We previously demonstrated a patient-centered education bundle improved VTE prophylaxis administration broadly; however, patient-specific factors driving nonadministration are unclear. We examine the effects of the education bundle on missed doses of VTE prophylaxis by sex. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nonrandomized controlled trial to evaluate the differences in missed doses by sex. Pre-intervention and intervention periods for patients admitted to 16 surgical and medical floors between 10/2014-03/2015 (pre-intervention) and 04/2015-12/2015 (intervention) were compared. We examined the conditional odds of (1) overall missed doses, (2) missed doses due to patient refusal, and (3) missed doses for other reasons. RESULTS: Overall, 16,865 patients were included (pre-intervention 6853, intervention 10,012), with 2350 male and 2460 female patients (intervention), and 6373 male and 5682 female patients (control). Any missed dose significantly reduced on the intervention floors among male (odds ratio OR 0.55; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.44-0.70, P < 0.001) and female (OR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001) patients. Similar significant reductions ensued for missed doses due to patient refusal (P < 0.001). Overall, there were no sex-specific differences (P-interaction >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention increased VTE prophylaxis administration for both female and male patients, driven by decreased patient refusal. Patient education should be applicable to a wide range of patient demographics representative of the target group. To improve future interventions, quality improvement efforts should be evaluated based on patient demographics and drivers of differences in care.

Lessons Learned From Rapid Deployment of 100% Mortality Review for Patients With COVID-19 Across a Health System.

Mortality review is one approach to systematically examine delivery of care and identify areas for improvement. Health system leaders sought to ensure hospitals were adapting to the rapidly changing medical guidance for COVID-19 and delivering high-quality care. Thus, all patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis within the 6-hospital system who died between March and July 2020 were reviewed within 72 hours. Concerns for preventability advanced review to level 2 (content experts) or 3 (hospital leadership). Reviews included available autopsy and cardiac arrest data. Overall health system mortality for COVID-19 patient admissions was 12.5% and mortality for mechanically ventilated patients was 34.4%. Significant differences in mortality rates were observed among hospitals due to demographic variations in patient populations at hospitals. Mortality reviews resulted in the dissemination of evolving knowledge among sites using an electronic medical record order set, implementation of proning teams, and development of checklists for converting COVID-19 floors and units.

Systematic Undercoding of Diagnostic Procedures in National Inpatient Sample (NIS): A Threat to Validity Due to Surveillance Bias.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Health services research often relies on readily available data, originally collected for administrative purposes and used for public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives. We examined the prevalence of underreporting of diagnostic procedures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE), used for public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives. METHOD: We retrospectively identified procedures for AMI, DVT, and PE in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between 2012 and 2016. From January 1, 2012, through September 30, 2015, the NIS used the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding scheme. From October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, the NIS used the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding scheme. We grouped the data by ICD code definitions (ICD-9 or ICD-10) to reflect these code changes and to prevent any confounding or misclassification. In addition, we used survey weighting to examine the utilization of venous duplex ultrasound scan for DVT, electrocardiogram (ECG) for AMI, and chest computed tomography (CT) scan, pulmonary angiography, echocardiography, and nuclear medicine ventilation/perfusion () scan for PE. RESULTS: In the ICD-9 period, by primary diagnosis, only 0.26% (n = 5930) of patients with reported AMI had an ECG. Just 2.13% (n = 7455) of patients with reported DVT had a peripheral vascular ultrasound scan. For patients with PE diagnosis, 1.92% (n = 12 885) had pulmonary angiography, 3.92% (n = 26 325) had CT scan, 5.31% (n = 35 645) had cardiac ultrasound scan, and 0.45% (n = 3025) had scan. In the ICD-10 period, by primary diagnosis, 0.04% (n = 345) of reported AMI events had an ECG and 0.91% (n = 920) of DVT events had a peripheral vascular ultrasound scan. For patients with PE diagnosis, 2.08% (n = 4805) had pulmonary angiography, 0.63% (n = 1460) had CT scan, 1.68% (n = 3890) had cardiac ultrasound scan, and 0.06% (n = 140) had scan. Small proportions of diagnostic procedures were observed for any diagnoses of AMI, DVT, or PE. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings question the validity of using NIS and other administrative databases for health services and outcomes research that rely on certain diagnostic procedures. Unfortunately, the NIS does not provide granular data that can control for differences in diagnostic procedure use, which can lead to surveillance bias. Researchers and policy makers must understand and acknowledge the limitations inherent in these databases, when used for pay-for-performance initiatives and hospital benchmarking.

Audit and Feedback to Surgery Interns and Residents on Prescribing Risk-Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback using an emailed scorecard and a web-based dashboard on risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescribing practices among general surgery interns and residents. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The Johns Hopkins Hospital, an urban academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All 45 trainees (19 post-graduate year [PGY] 1 interns and 26 PGY-2 to PGY-5 residents) in our general surgery program. INTERVENTION: Feedback implementation encompassed three sequential periods: (1) scorecard (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015); (2) no feedback/wash-in (July 1 through October 31, 2015); and (3) web-based dashboard (November 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016). No feedback served as the baseline period for the intern cohort. The scorecard was a static document showing an individual's compliance with risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescription compared to compliance of their de-identified peers. The web-based dashboard included other information (e.g., patient details for suboptimal prophylaxis orders) besides individual compliance compared to their de-identified peers. Trainees could access the dashboard anytime to view current and historic performance. We sent monthly emails to all trainees for both feedback mechanisms. Main outcome was proportion of patients prescribed risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, and mean percentages reported. RESULTS: During this study, 4088 VTE prophylaxis orders were placed. Among residents, mean prescription of risk-appropriate prophylaxis was higher in the wash-in (98.4% vs 95.6%, p < 0.001) and dashboard (98.4 vs 95.6%, p < 0.001) periods compared to the scorecard period. There was no difference in mean compliance between the wash-in and dashboard periods (98.4% vs 98.4%, p = 0.99). Among interns, mean prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis improved between the wash-in and dashboard periods (91.5% vs 96.4%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using audit and individualized performance feedback to general surgery trainees through a web-based dashboard improved prescribing of appropriate VTE prophylaxis to a near-perfect performance.

Nonadministration of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is less common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is higher than most other hospitalized patients. Nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is common and is associated with VTE events. Our objective was to determine whether nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is more common in patients with COVID-19 versus other hospitalized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis of all adult patients discharged from the Johns hopkins hospital between Mar 1 and May 12, 2020, we compared demographic, clinical characteristics, VTE outcomes, prescription and administration of VTE prophylaxis between COVID-19 positive, negative, and not tested groups. RESULTS: Patients tested positive for COVID-19 were significantly older, and more likely to be Hispanic, have a higher median body mass index, have longer hospital length of stay, require mechanical ventilation, develop pulmonary embolism and die (all p < 0.001). COVID-19 patients were more likely to be prescribed (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.38-1.66) and receive all doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.36-1.62). The number of patients who missed at least one dose of VTE prophylaxis and developed VTE was similar between the three groups (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that high rates of VTE in COVID-19 are due to nonadministration of doses of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Hence, we should prioritize research into alternative approaches to optimizing VTE prevention in patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of ambulation to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient ambulation is frequently recommended to help prevent venous thromboembolism during hospital admission. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for ambulation as a prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials indexed from their inception through April 2020 for studies of adult patients admitted to hospital, in which ambulation or mobilization alone or concomitant with prophylaxis was indicated for prevention of venous thromboembolism. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using 2 validated tools. We scored studies on quality of reporting, internal and external validity and study power; combined scores determined the overall quality. RESULTS: Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts, 7 RCTs and 1 secondary analysis of an RCT. The intervention (ambulation or mobilized) groups varied across studies. Five studies examined exercise as a therapeutic prophylaxis for thrombosis and 9 described an ambulation protocol. Five studies attempted to quantify amount and duration of patient ambulation and 3 reported ambulation distance. In the 5 studies rated as good or excellent statistical quality, findings were mixed. Incidence of venous thromboembolism was lowest when pharmacologic anticoagulants were added as part of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen. INTERPRETATION: We did not find high-quality evidence supporting ambulation alone as an effective prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Ambulation should not be considered an adequate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, nor as an adequate reason to discontinue pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during a patient's hospital admission.

What Does Venous Thromboembolism Mean in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program?

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects an estimated 350,000 to 600,000 individuals and causes approximately 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Postoperative VTE is a core measure reported by The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). The objective of this research was to assess the validity of VTE events reported by NSQIP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using NSQIP data from January 2006 through December 2018 and the electronic health record system data from five adult hospitals in the Johns Hopkins Health System. We included patients aged 18 years and older with a VTE event identified in our NSQIP data set. The main outcome measure was the proportion of valid VTE events, defined as concordant between the NSQIP data set and medical chart review for clinical documentation. RESULTS: Of 474 patients identified in our NSQIP database with a VTE, 26 (5.5%) did not meet the strict NSQIP definition of VTE. Nine had a preoperative history of DVT and no new postoperative event, seven had a negative workup for VTE, six had a peripheral arterial thrombus, two did not receive or refused therapy, one had an aortic thrombus, and one had a venous thrombosis in a surgical flap. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a considerable number of surgical patients misclassified as having a VTE in NSQIP, when did not truly. This highlights the need to improve definition specificity and standardize processes involved in data extraction, validation, and reporting to provide unbiased data for use in quality improvement.

Using electronic health record system triggers to target delivery of a patient-centered intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prevention for hospitalized patients: Is there a differential effect by race?

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities are common in healthcare. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable harm, and disparities observed in prevention practices. We examined the impact of a patient-centered VTE education bundle on the non-administration of preventive prophylaxis by race. METHODS: A post-hoc, subset analysis (stratified by race) of a larger nonrandomized trial. Pre-post comparisons analysis were conducted on 16 inpatient units; study periods were October 2014 through March 2015 (baseline) and April through December 2015 (post-intervention). Patients on 4 intervention units received the patient-centered, nurse educator-led intervention if the electronic health record alerted a non-administered dose of VTE prophylaxis. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. We compared the conditional odds of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis when patient refusal was a reason for non-administration, stratified by race. RESULTS: Of 272 patient interventions, 123 (45.2%) were white, 126 (46.3%) were black, and 23 (8.5%) were other races. A significant reduction was observed in the odds of non-administration of prophylaxis on intervention units compared to control units among patients who were black (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81, p<0.001), white (OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75, p<0.001), and other races (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.88, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Our finding suggests that the patient education materials, developed collaboratively with a diverse group of patients, improved patient's understanding and the importance of VTE prevention through prophylaxis. Quality improvement interventions should examine any differential effects by patient characteristics to ensure disparities are addressed and all patients experience the same benefits.

Latent risk assessment tool for health care leaders.

Efforts to improve quality of care and patient safety have concentrated on provider practice and frontline care processes. Little attention has focused on understanding the role that leadership decisions play in creating risk within a health care system. The framework and tool described in this article builds on Reason's construct of latent organizational failure, by assessing the latent risks of leadership decisions, and identifying appropriate mitigation strategies before the implementation of a change. Stakeholders who will be involved in or impacted by the change are engaged in the assessment to more thoroughly explore both technical and cultural risks.

Effect of Real-time Patient-Centered Education Bundle on Administration of Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: Numerous interventions have improved prescription of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; however, many prescribed doses are not administered to hospitalized patients, primarily owing to patient refusal. Objective: To evaluate a real-time, targeted, patient-centered education bundle intervention to reduce nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled, preintervention-postintervention comparison trial included 19 652 patient visits on 16 units at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, from April 1 through December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from June 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017, on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: Patients on 4 intervention units received a patient-centered education bundle if a dose of VTE prophylaxis medication was not administered. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Conditional odds of nonadministration of doses of VTE prophylaxis (primary outcome) before and after the intervention on control vs intervention units. Reasons for nonadministration (ie, patient refusal and other) and VTE event rates (secondary outcomes) were compared. Results: A total of 19 652 patient visits where at least 1 dose of VTE prophylaxis was prescribed were included (51.7% men; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [17.1] years). Preintervention and postintervention groups were relatively similar in age, sex, race, and medical or surgery unit. From the preintervention period to the postintervention period, on intervention units, the conditional odds of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration declined significantly (9.1% [95% CI, 5.2%-16.2%] vs 5.6% [95% CI, 3.1%-9.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67) compared with no change on control units (13.6% [95% CI, 9.8%-18.7%] vs 13.3% [95% CI, 9.6%-18.5%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07; P < .001 for interaction). The conditional odds of nonadministration owing to patient refusal decreased significantly on intervention units (5.9% [95% CI, 2.6%-13.6%] vs 3.4% [95% CI, 1.5%-7.8%]; OR, 0.53; 95% CI ,0.43-0.65) compared with no change on control units (8.7% [95% CI, 5.4%-14.0%] vs 8.5% [95% CI, 5.3%-13.8%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08; P < .001 for interaction). On intervention units, the conditional odds of nonadministration owing to reasons other than patient refusal decreased (2.3% [95% CI, 1.5%-3.4%] vs 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.6%]; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94), with no change on control units (3.4% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.4%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 2.6%-4.2%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; P = .04 for interaction). No differential effect occurred on medical vs surgical units (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23; P = .41 for interaction). There was no statistical difference in the proportion of VTE events among patients on intervention vs control units (0.30% vs 0.18%; OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.23). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a targeted patient-centered education bundle significantly reduced nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients. This novel strategy improves health care quality by leveraging electronic data to target interventions in real time for at-risk patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02402881.

Sustaining Reliability on Accountability Measures at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 Johns Hopkins Medicine leaders challenged their health system to reliably deliver best practice care linked to nationally vetted core measures and achieve The Joint Commission Top Performer on Key Quality Measures ®program recognition and the Delmarva Foundation award. Thus, the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality implemented an initiative to ensure that ≥96% of patients received care linked to measures. Nine low-performing process measures were targeted for improvement-eight Joint Commission accountability measures and one Delmarva Foundation core measure. In the initial evaluation at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, all accountability measures for the Top Performer program reached the required ≥95% performance, gaining them recognition by The Joint Commission in 2013. Efforts were made to sustain performance of accountability measures at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. METHODS: Improvements were sustained through 2014 using the following conceptual framework: declare and communicate goals, create an enabling infrastructure, engage clinicians and connect them in peer learning communities, report transparently, and create accountability systems. One part of the accountability system was for teams to create a sustainability plan, which they presented to senior leaders. To support sustained improvements, Armstrong Institute leaders added a project management office for all externally reported quality measures and concurrent reviewers to audit performance on care processes for certain measure sets. CONCLUSIONS: The Johns Hopkins Hospital sustained performance on all accountability measures, and now more than 96% of patients receive recommended care consistent with nationally vetted quality measures. The initiative methods enabled the transition of quality improvement from an isolated project to a way of leading an organization.

Individualized Performance Feedback to Surgical Residents Improves Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Prescription and Reduces Potentially Preventable VTE: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of providing personal clinical effectiveness performance feedback to general surgery residents regarding prescription of appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Residents are frequently charged with prescribing medications for patients, including VTE prophylaxis, but rarely receive individual performance feedback regarding these practice habits. METHODS: This prospective cohort study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital compared outcomes across 3 study periods: (1) baseline, (2) scorecard alone, and (3) scorecard plus coaching. All general surgery residents (n = 49) and surgical patients (n = 2420) for whom residents wrote admission orders during the first 9 months of the 2013-2014 academic year were included. Outcomes included the proportions of patients prescribed appropriate VTE prophylaxis, patients with preventable VTE, and residents prescribing appropriate VTE prophylaxis for every patient, and results from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident survey. RESULTS: At baseline, 89.4% of patients were prescribed appropriate VTE prophylaxis and only 45% of residents prescribed appropriate prophylaxis for every patient. During the scorecard period, appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescription significantly increased to 95.4% (P < 0.001). For the scorecard plus coaching period, significantly more residents prescribed appropriate prophylaxis for every patient (78% vs 45%, P = 0.0017). Preventable VTE was eliminated in both intervention periods (0% vs 0.35%, P = 0.046). After providing feedback, significantly more residents reported receiving data about practice habits on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident survey (87% vs 38%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing personal clinical effectiveness feedback including data and peer-to-peer coaching improves resident performance, and results in a significant reduction in harm for patients.

The Armstrong Institute: An Academic Institute for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, Research, Training, and Practice.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) could advance the science of health care delivery, improve patient safety and quality improvement, and enhance value, but many centers have fragmented efforts with little accountability. Johns Hopkins Medicine, the AMC under which the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Health System are organized, experienced similar challenges, with operational patient safety and quality leadership separate from safety and quality-related research efforts. To unite efforts and establish accountability, the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality was created in 2011.The authors describe the development, purpose, governance, function, and challenges of the institute to help other AMCs replicate it and accelerate safety and quality improvement. The purpose is to partner with patients, their loved ones, and all interested parties to end preventable harm, continuously improve patient outcomes and experience, and eliminate waste in health care. A governance structure was created, with care mapped into seven categories, to oversee the quality and safety of all patients treated at a Johns Hopkins Medicine entity. The governance has a Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee that sets strategic goals, and the institute communicates these goals throughout the health system and supports personnel in meeting these goals. The institute is organized into 13 functional councils reflecting their behaviors and purpose. The institute works daily to build the capacity of clinicians trained in safety and quality through established programs, advance improvement science, and implement and evaluate interventions to improve the quality of care and safety of patients.

Strategies to enhance adoption of ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention interventions: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is among the most lethal of all healthcare-associated infections. Guidelines summarize interventions to prevent VAP, but translating recommendations into practice is an art unto itself. OBJECTIVE: Summarize strategies to enhance adoption of VAP prevention interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of articles in the MEDLINE database published between 2002 and 2012. We selected articles on the basis of specific inclusion criteria. We used structured forms to abstract implementation strategies and inserted them into the "engage, educate, execute, and evaluate" framework. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met our inclusion criteria. Engagement strategies included multidisciplinary teamwork, involvement of local champions, and networking among peers. Educational strategies included training sessions and developing succinct summaries of the evidence. Execution strategies included standardization of care processes and building redundancies into routine care. Evaluation strategies included measuring performance and providing feedback to staff. CONCLUSION: We summarized and organized practical implementation strategies in a framework to enhance adoption of recommended evidence-based practices. We believe this work fills an important void in most clinical practice guidelines, and broad use of these strategies may expedite VAP reduction efforts.