Development of a Multidisciplinary Pediatric Airway Program: An Institutional Experience.

Rapid response teams have become necessary components of patient care within the hospital community, including for airway management. Pediatric patients with an increased risk of having a difficult airway emergency can often be predicted on the basis of clinical scenarios and medical history. This predictability has led to the creation of airway consultation services designed to develop airway management plans for patients experiencing respiratory distress and who are at risk for having a difficult airway requiring advanced airway management. In addition, evolving technology has facilitated airway management outside of the operating suite. Training and continuing education on the use of these tools for airway management is imperative for clinicians responding to airway emergencies. We describe the comprehensive multidisciplinary, multicomponent Pediatric Difficult Airway Program we created that addresses each component identified above: the Pediatric Difficult Airway Response Team (PDART), the Pediatric Difficult Airway Consult Service, and the pediatric educational airway program. Approximately 41% of our PDART emergency calls occurred in the evening hours, requiring a specialized team ready to respond throughout the day and night. A multitude of devices were used during the calls, obviating the need for formal education and hands-on experience with these devices. Lastly, we observed that the majority of PDART calls occurred in patients who either were previously designated as having a difficult airway and/or had anatomic variations that suggest challenges during airway management. By instituting the Pediatric Difficult Airway Consult Service, we have decreased emergent Difficult Airway Response Team calls with the ultimate goal of first-attempt intubation success.

A Decade of Difficult Airway Response Team: Lessons Learned from a Hospital-Wide Difficult Airway Response Team Program.

A decade ago the Difficult Airway Response Team (DART) program was created at The Johns Hopkins Hospital as a multidisciplinary effort to address airway-related adverse events in the nonoperative setting. Root cause analysis of prior events indicated that a major factor in adverse patient outcomes was lack of a systematic approach for responding to difficult airway patients in an emergency. The DART program encompasses operational, safety, and educational initiatives and has responded to approximately 1000 events since its initiation, with no resultant adult airway-related adverse events or morbidity. This article provides lessons learned and recommendations for initiating a DART program.

Difficult airway response team: a novel quality improvement program for managing hospital-wide airway emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Difficult airway cases can quickly become emergencies, increasing the risk of life-threatening complications or death. Emergency airway management outside the operating room is particularly challenging. METHODS: We developed a quality improvement program-the Difficult Airway Response Team (DART)-to improve emergency airway management outside the operating room. DART was implemented by a team of anesthesiologists, otolaryngologists, trauma surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and risk managers in 2005 at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. The DART program had 3 core components: operations, safety, and education. The operations component focused on developing a multidisciplinary difficult airway response team, standardizing the emergency response process, and deploying difficult airway equipment carts throughout the hospital. The safety component focused on real-time monitoring of DART activations and learning from past DART events to continuously improve system-level performance. This objective entailed monitoring the paging system, reporting difficult airway events and DART activations to a Web-based registry, and using in situ simulations to identify and mitigate defects in the emergency airway management process. The educational component included development of a multispecialty difficult airway curriculum encompassing case-based lectures, simulation, and team building/communication to ensure consistency of care. Educational materials were also developed for non-DART staff and patients to inform them about the needs of patients with difficult airways and ensure continuity of care with other providers after discharge. RESULTS: Between July 2008 and June 2013, DART managed 360 adult difficult airway events comprising 8% of all code activations. Predisposing patient factors included body mass index >40, history of head and neck tumor, prior difficult intubation, cervical spine injury, airway edema, airway bleeding, and previous or current tracheostomy. Twenty-three patients (6%) required emergent surgical airways. Sixty-two patients (17%) were stabilized and transported to the operating room for definitive airway management. There were no airway management-related deaths, sentinel events, or malpractice claims in adult patients managed by DART. Five in situ simulations conducted in the first program year improved DART's teamwork, communication, and response times and increased the functionality of the difficult airway carts. Over the 5-year period, we conducted 18 airway courses, through which >200 providers were trained. CONCLUSIONS: DART is a comprehensive program for improving difficult airway management. Future studies will examine the comparative effectiveness of the DART program and evaluate how DART has impacted patient outcomes, operational efficiency, and costs of care.

A novel role for otolaryngologists in the multidisciplinary Difficult Airway Response Team.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The Difficult Airway Response Team (DART) was implemented in July 2008 to address emergent difficult airway situations. The main objective of this study was to highlight the unique role and skill set that otolaryngologists bring and their impact on patient outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the hospital's airway registry. METHODS: We collected data on demographics, airway characteristics, airway management techniques used by each specialty, and clinical outcomes (such as cricothyrotomies) for patients for whom a code was activated between July 2006 and June 2010. We compared data between pre- and post-DART cohorts and between DART and non-DART patients using a matched case-control approach. RESULTS: Of the 2,826 codes, 90 patients required DART management between July 2008 and June 2010. Body mass index, cervical spine injury/fixation, history of difficult airway, head and neck mass, and oropharyngeal and/or supraglottic angioedema were identified as significant predictors for DART activation. Forty-nine (60%) patients' airways were secured by anesthesiologists, 30 (36%) by otolaryngologists, and three (4%) by trauma surgeons. Otolaryngologists were able to use specialized techniques such as Holinger and Dedo laryngoscopes to significantly decrease the number of cricothyrotomies from seven (0.73%) pre-DART implementation to four (0.21%) post-DART implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Otolaryngologists were able to decrease the need for cricothyrotomies using specialized techniques for patients with difficult airways. Otolaryngologists bring a special skill set to the DART that is beyond the scope of anesthesiologists and trauma surgeons and that can improve patient outcomes by preventing unnecessary emergency surgical airways.

Patient safety reporting systems: sustained quality improvement using a multidisciplinary team and "good catch" awards.

BACKGROUND: Since 1999, hospitals have made substantial commitments to health care quality and patient safety through individual initiatives of executive leadership involvement in quality, investments in safety culture, education and training for medical students and residents in quality and safety, the creation of patient safety committees, and implementation of patient safety reporting systems. At the Weinberg Surgical Suite at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore), a 16-operating-room inpatient/outpatient cancer center, a patient safety reporting process was developed to maximize the usefulness of the reports and the long-term sustainability of quality improvements arising from them. METHODS: A six-phase framework was created incorporating UHC's Patient Safety Net (PSN): Identify, report, analyze, mitigate, reward, and follow up. Unique features of this process included a multidisciplinary team to review reports, mitigate hazards, educate and empower providers, recognize the identifying/reporting individuals or groups with "Good Catch" awards, and follow up to determine if quality improvements were sustained over time. RESULTS: Good Catch awards have been given in recognition of 29 patient safety hazards identified since 2008; in each of these cases, an initiative was developed to mitigate the original hazard. Twenty-five (86%) of the associated quality improvements have been sustained. Two Good Catch award-winning projects--vials of heparin with an unusually high concentration of the drug that posed a potential overdose hazard and a rapid infusion device that resisted practitioner control--are described in detail. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary team's analysis and mitigation of hazards identified in a patient safety reporting process entailed positive recognition with a Good Catch award, education of practitioners, and long-term follow-up.

ReCASTing the RCA: an improved model for performing root cause analyses.

The root cause analysis (RCA) process is used to investigate adverse events. However, it may not reduce the risk of recurrence as effectively as intended. The authors propose adapting a risk prioritization and reduction process modeled after the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST). The process involves the following: (a) increasing effectiveness of selected interventions by prioritizing each cause/contributing factor based on its role in the current sentinel event as well as in future events; interventions are then selected based on their ability to remediate the root causes/contributing factors and the likelihood of successful implementation; (b) measuring effectiveness of intervention implementation; and ( c) evaluating effectiveness of the interventions by measuring the rates of event recurrence, near misses, contributing factors, mitigating factors, and staff perceptions of risk. Teams that evaluate intervention effectiveness are independent of those that implement the intervention. This framework seeks to improve the RCA process and provide further insights into advancing patient safety.

A practical framework for patient care teams to prospectively identify and mitigate clinical hazards.

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges facing both practitioners and risk managers is the identification of previously unknown clinical hazards and defects. With the rapid proliferation of new health care services, unknown hazards may propagate as new therapies are integrated into the existing health care system. The main goal of risk analysis is to make these hazards visible by proactively searching and probing the system. Yet, a comprehensive approach by which to safely integrate new therapies into the existing clinical environment has yet to be clearly articulated. Patient care teams can use the proposed framework when introducing new therapies. A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK: The framework includes a background investigation and literature search; an in situ simulation (in the actual clinical setting used for patients); a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis to determine the severity, probability, and risk of the potential hazards; and a multidisciplinary protocol and safety checklist to standardize practice and ensure provider accountability. CASE EXAMPLES: Application of this framework to three operative scenarios--intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and an interventional pulmonology program--demonstrates its flexibility. Its use prospectively identified and mitigated 20 IORT, 5 HIPEC, and 18 interventional pulmonology hazards/defects. Subsequent patient cases were largely uneventful. All cases and patient safety reporting systems are monitored to identify any new defects in an effort to continuously improve patient care. CONCLUSION: The use of a comprehensive framework to identify and mitigate hazards in an on-site simulated environment promotes safer care for target patient populations; results in familiarity with procedures, amelioration of staff concerns, and standardization of practice; and facilitates teamwork and communication.