Quality improvement report: Linking guideline to regular feedback to increase appropriate requests for clinical tests: blood gas analysis in intensive care.

PROBLEM: Need to decrease the number of requests for arterial blood gas analysis and increase their appropriateness to reduce the amount of blood drawn from patients, the time wasted by nurses, and the related cost. DESIGN: Assessment of the impact of a multifaceted intervention aimed at changing requests for arterial blood gas analysis in a before and after study. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: Twenty bed surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary university affiliated hospital, receiving 1500 patients per year. KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Number of tests per patient day, proportion of tests complying with current guideline, and safety indicators (mortality, incident rate, length of stay). Comparison of three 10 month periods corresponding to baseline, pilot (first version of the guideline), and consolidated (second version of the guideline) periods from March 1997 to August 1999. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: Multifaceted intervention combining a new guideline developed by a multidisciplinary group, educational sessions, and monthly feedback about adherence to the guideline and use of blood gas analysis. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Substantial decrease in the number of tests per patient day (from 8.2 to 4.8; P<0.0001), associated with increased adherence to the guideline (from 53% to 80%, P<0.0001). No significant variation of safety indicators. LESSONS LEARNT: A multifaceted intervention can substantially decrease the number of requests for arterial blood gas analysis and increase their appropriateness without affecting patient safety.

Hospital-wide surveillance of catheter-related bloodstream infection: from the expected to the unexpected.

Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are among the most frequent healthcare-associated infections and cause considerable morbidity, mortality, and resource use. CRBSI surveillance serves quality improvement, but is often restricted to intensive care units (ICUs). We conducted a four-month prospective cohort study of all non-cuffed central venous catheters (CVCs) to design an efficient CRBSI surveillance and prevention programme. CVCs were assessed on a daily basis for ward exposure time, care parameters, and the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed CRBSI. Overall, 248 patients with 426 CVCs accounted for 3567 CVC-days (median: 5) and 15 CRBSI episodes. CVCs were inserted by anaesthetists, ICU physicians and internists in 45%, 47%, and 8% of cases, respectively. CVC utilisation rates for intensive care, internal medicine, non-abdominal surgery and abdominal surgery were 29.8, 3.8, 1.7 and 4.9 per 100 patient-days, respectively. Fourteen percent of patients changed wards while having a CVC in place, so spending CVC-days at risk within multiple departments. CRBSI incidence densities for ICU, internal medicine, surgery and abdominal surgery were 5.6, 1.9, 2.4 and 7.7 per 1000 CVC-days at risk, respectively. In a univariate Cox proportional hazards model, the high CRBSI rate in abdominal surgery was associated with longer CVC duration, frequent use of parenteral nutrition and CVC insertion by anaesthetists. CRBSI numbers were insufficient to perform a multivariate analysis. Our surveillance revealed similar CRBSI rates in both ICU and non-ICU departments, and when frequent ward transfers occurred. Hospital-wide CRBSI surveillance is advisable when a large proportion of CVC-days occur outside the ICU.

Using system analysis to build a safety culture: improving the reliability of epidural analgesia.

BACKGROUND: A potentially dangerous situation was revealed by an incident report describing the use of an inappropriate device to administer post-operative epidural analgesia to a patient on a surgical ward. The incident occurred in a 1200-bed university affiliated tertiary hospital (Geneva University Hospitals, HUG) and involved three clinical departments: anaesthesiology, the surgical intensive care unit and urology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary system analysis was carried out to identify care-delivery problems and contributory factors. Corrective actions were devised on the basis of their ability to prevent and absorb unsafe situations. RESULTS: The system analysis identified three care-delivery problems in relation to the management of epidural analgesia. It enabled medical and nursing managers to adopt an interdepartmental set of corrective actions: a common protocol for post-operative epidural analgesia, leading to the exclusive use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pumps; greater availability of the patient-controlled pumps; the dissemination of guidelines; permanent proactive training of nurses by the acute-pain team; the clarification of medical responsibilities; and a common help-line phone number for all surgical departments. DISCUSSION: The analysis provided a convincing exposure of various care-delivery problems and their corresponding contributory factors, as well as an opportunity to address a systemic issue in a multidisciplinary way. By thus facilitating decisions and corrective actions, the analysis was instrumental in strengthening our safety culture.

Point of care and central laboratory determinations of the aPTT are not interchangeable in surgical intensive care patients.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to compare a bedside whole blood activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) performed by a point of care (POC) apparatus (CoaguCheck(R) Pro) in surgical intensive care (SIC) patients with a conventional aPTT obtained from the central laboratory. METHODS: The prospective concomitant measurements of the two aPTT were performed in 233 samples from 46 consecutive patients admitted after cardiovascular or major abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Inter-operator, inter-instrument and inter-cartridge variability of the new device measured in three healthy volunteers and in nine patients in stable condition (controls) was low (F test: P=0.86). The agreement by Bland and Altman between POC and central laboratory aPTT (-20.2 +/- 18.8 sec) was not satisfactory. The agreement between POC and central laboratory aPTT in patients after surgery was worst (-17 +/- 33.1 sec). Heparin treatment or timing of blood sampling after intensive care admission (<48 hr vs >48 hr) did not influence the agreement. The correlation between POC or central laboratory aPTT and anti-factor Xa activity was poor (r(2) 0.077 and 0.181 respectively). The test which correlated the best to heparin doses was anti-factor Xa activity (r(2) 0.714). CONCLUSION: POC aPTT and central laboratory aPTT showed a poor agreement in SIC patients admitted after surgery, although in healthy volunteers or in control patients, this agreement was better. The best test to monitor heparin treatment in this setting was anti-factor Xa activity.