Perioperative temperature monitoring for patient safety: A period prevalence study of five hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring body temperature is essential for safe perioperative care. Without patient monitoring during each surgical phase, alterations in core body temperature will not be recognised, prevented, or treated. Safe use of warming interventions also depends on monitoring. Yet there has been limited evaluation of temperature monitoring practices as the primary endpoint. OBJECTIVE: To investigate temperature monitoring practices during all stages of perioperative care. We examined what patient characteristics are associated with the rate of temperature monitoring, along with clinical variables such as warming intervention or exposure to hypothermia. DESIGN: An observational period-prevalence study over seven days across five Australian hospitals. SETTINGS: Four metropolitan, tertiary hospitals and one regional hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We selected all adult patients (N = 1690) undergoing any surgical procedure and any mode of anaesthesia during the study period. METHODS: Patient characteristics, perioperative temperature data, warming interventions and exposure to hypothermia were retrospectively collected from patient charts. We describe the frequencies and distribution of temperature data at each perioperative stage, including adherence to minimum temperature monitoring based on clinical guidelines. To examine associations with clinical variables, we also modelled the rate of temperature monitoring using each patient's count of recorded temperature measurements within their calculated time interval from anaesthetic induction to postanaesthetic care unit discharge. All analyses adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CI) for patient clustering by hospital. RESULTS: There were low levels of temperature monitoring, with most temperature data clustered around admission to postanaesthetic care. Over half of patients (51.8%) had two or less temperatures recorded during perioperative care and one-third (32.7%) had no temperature data at all prior to admission to postanaesthetic care. Of all patients that received active warming intervention during surgery, over two-thirds (68.5%) had no temperature monitoring recorded. In our adjusted model, associations between clinical variables and the rate of temperature monitoring often did not reflect clinical risk or need: rates were decreased for those with greatest operative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification IV: rate ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.89; emergency surgery: RR 0.89, 0.80-0.98), and neither warming interventions (intraoperative warming: RR 1.01, 0.93-1.10; postanaesthetic care unit warming: RR 1.02, 0.98-1.07) nor hypothermia at postanaesthetic care unit admission (RR 1.12, 0.98-1.28) were associated with monitoring rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to the need for systems-level change to enable proactive temperature monitoring over all phases of perioperative care to enhance patient safety outcomes. REGISTRATION: Not a clinical trial.

Creating an Implementation Enhancement Plan for a Digital Patient Fall Prevention Platform Using the CFIR-ERIC Approach: A Qualitative Study.

(1) Background: Inpatient falls are a major cause of hospital-acquired complications (HAC) and inpatient harm. Interventions to prevent falls exist, but it is unclear which are most effective and what implementation strategies best support their use. This study uses existing implementation theory to develop an implementation enhancement plan to improve the uptake of a digital fall prevention workflow. (2) Methods: A qualitative approach using focus groups/interview included 12 participants across four inpatient wards, from a newly built, 300-bed rural referral hospital. Interviews were coded to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and then converted to barrier and enabler statements using consensus agreement. Barriers and enablers were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool to develop an implementation enhancement plan. (3) Results: The most prevalent CFIR enablers included: relative advantage (n = 12), access to knowledge and information (n = 11), leadership engagement (n = 9), patient needs and resources (n = 8), cosmopolitanism (n = 5), knowledge and beliefs about the intervention (n = 5), self-efficacy (n = 5) and formally appointed internal implementation leaders (n = 5). Commonly mentioned CFIR barriers included: access to knowledge and information (n = 11), available resources (n = 8), compatibility (n = 8), patient needs and resources (n = 8), design quality and packaging (n = 10), adaptability (n = 7) and executing (n = 7). After mapping the CFIR enablers and barriers to the ERIC tool, six clusters of interventions were revealed: train and educate stakeholders, utilize financial strategies, adapt and tailor to context, engage consumers, use evaluative and iterative strategies and develop stakeholder interrelations. (4) Conclusions: The enablers and barriers identified are similar to those described in the literature. Given there is close agreement between the ERIC consensus framework recommendations and the evidence, this approach will likely assist in enhancing the implementation of Rauland's Concentric Care fall prevention platform and other similar workflow technologies that have the potential to disrupt team and organisational routines. The results of this study will provide a blueprint to enhance implementation that will be tested for effectiveness at a later stage.

Results from a type two hybrid-effectiveness study to implement a preoperative anemia and iron deficiency screening, evaluation, and management pathway.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of pathways to screen surgical patients for preoperative anemia and iron deficiency remains limited. This study sought to measure the impact of a theoretically informed, bespoke change package on improving the uptake of a Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation, and Management Pathway. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Pre-post interventional study using a type two hybrid-effectiveness design evaluated implementation. Four hundred (400) patient medical record reviews provided the dataset (200 pre- and 200-post implementation). The primary outcome measure was compliance with the pathway. Secondary outcome measures (clinical outcomes) were anemia on day of surgery, exposure to a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and hospital length of stay. Validated surveys facilitated data collection of implementation measures. Propensity score-adjusted analyses determined the effect of the intervention on clinical outcomes, and a cost analysis determined the economic impact. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, compliance improved significantly post-implementation (Odds Ratio 10.6 [95% CI 4.4-25.5] p < .000). In secondary outcomes, adjusted analyses point estimates showed clinical outcomes were slightly improved for anemia on day of surgery (Odds Ratio 0.792 [95% CI 0.5-1.3] p = .32), RBC transfusion (Odds Ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.41-1.78] p = .69) and hospital length of stay (Hazard Ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.77-1.18] p = .67), although these were not statistically significant. Cost savings of $13,340 per patient were realized. Implementation outcomes were favorable for acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. CONCLUSION: The change package significantly improved compliance. The absence of a statistically significant change in clinical outcomes may be because the study was powered to detect an improvement in compliance only. Further prospective studies with larger samples are needed. Cost savings of $13,340 per patient were achieved and the change package was viewed favorably.

Patients' Choice, Consent, and Ethics in Patient Blood Management.

The goal of patient blood management (PBM) is to optimize clinical outcomes for individual patients by managing their blood as a precious and unique resource to be safeguarded and managed judiciously. A corollary to successful PBM is the minimization or avoidance of blood transfusion and stewardship of donated blood. The first is achieved by a multidisciplinary approach with personalized management plans shared and decided on with the patient or their substitute. It follows that the physician-patient relationship is an integral component of medical practice and the fundamental link between patient and doctor based on trust and honest communication. Central to PBM is accurate and timely diagnosis based on sound physiology and pathophysiology as the bedrock on which scientifically based medicine is founded. PBM in all disease contexts starts with the questions, "What is the status of the patient's blood?" "If there are specific abnormalities in the blood, how should they be managed?" and "If allogeneic blood transfusion is considered, is there no reasonable alternative therapy?" There are compelling scientific reasons to implement a nontransfusion default position when there is clinical uncertainty and questionable evidence of clinical efficacy for allogeneic blood transfusion due to known potential hazards. Patients must be informed of their diagnosis, the nature, severity and prognosis of the disease, and treatment options along with risks and benefits. They should be involved in decision-making regarding their management. However, as part of this process, there are multifaceted medical, legal, ethical, and economic issues, encompassing shared decision-making, patient choice, and informed consent. Furthermore, variability in patient circumstances and preferences, the complexity of medical science, and the workings of health care systems in which consent takes place can be bewildering, not only for the patient but also for clinicians obtaining consent. Adding "patient" to the concept of blood management differentiates it from "donor" blood management to avoid confusion and the perception that PBM is a specific medical intervention. Personalized PBM is tailoring the PBM to the specific characteristics of each patient. With this approach, there should be no difficulty addressing the informed consent and ethical aspects of PBM. Patients can usually be reassured that there is nothing out of order with their blood, in which case the focus of PBM is to keep it that way. In some circumstances, a hematologist may be involved as a patient's blood advocate when abnormalities require expert involvement while the primary disease is being managed.

A review of electronic medical records and safe transfusion practice for guideline development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic medical records (EMRs) are often composed of multiple interlinking systems, each serving a particular task, including transfusion ordering and administration. Transfusion may not be prioritized when developing or implementing electronic platforms. Uniform guidelines may assist information technology (IT) developers, institutions and healthcare workforces to progress with shared goals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A narrative review of current clinical guidance, benefits and risks of electronic systems for clinical transfusion practice was combined with feedback from experienced transfusion practitioners. RESULTS: There is opportunity to improve the safety, quality and efficiency of transfusion practice, particularly through decision support and better identification procedures, by incorporating transfusion practice into EMRs. However, these benefits should not be assumed, as poorly designed processes within the electronic systems and the critically important electronic-human process interfaces may increase risk while creating the impression of safety. CONCLUSION: Guidelines should enable healthcare and IT industries to work constructively together so that each implementation provides assurance of safe practice.

A Theoretically Informed Approach to Support the Implementation of Pre-Operative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation, and Management Pathways: Protocol for a Type Two Hybrid-Effectiveness Study.

INTRODUCTION: Blood transfusions are a risk factor for increased morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Patient blood management guidelines provide guidance to reduce risk and improve patient outcomes. They outline steps to help prevent transfusions and considerations for when deciding to transfuse. One recommendation to prevent unnecessary transfusion is to optimize patients using Pre-operative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management Pathways (PAIDSEM-P). The uptake of these recommendations is highly variable, and an effective approach to implementing them in a tailored and context-specific manner remains elusive. METHOD AND DESIGN: A mixed-methods, interventional study, using a type two-hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, will evaluate the impact of a change package to improve the uptake of PAIDSEM-P. The change package consists of the intervention (PAIDSEM-P) supported by theoretically informed implementation strategies. Pre- and post-implementation, retrospective health record reviews will determine the effect of the change package on provider outcomes, including compliance with guideline recommendations as measured by the proportion of patients who have the appropriate tests performed, and, if required, appropriate treatment and/or referrals. Patient outcomes will be measured by checking for any difference in the proportion of patients with anemia on the day of surgery and the proportion of patients who receive a blood transfusion during the peri-operative period. An economic evaluation will be conducted to compare health outcomes and costs. The feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of the PAIDSEM-P will be assessed using a quantitative, validated survey to measure implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: Testing of implementation theory is required to advance understanding of what works, in what context, and the impact on implementation success. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a theoretically informed change package on improving the uptake of PAIDSEM-P. If successful, it will also provide a framework for health care facilities to follow when addressing other evidence-practice gaps.

Anaemia in patients undergoing major bowel surgery - Prevalence and current practice: A public and private institution experience.

AIM: The study aimed to compare the frequency and alignment of preoperative anaemia screening and treatment with Australian guidelines in elective bowel surgery and determine the impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study, with an audit of 559 adult patients who underwent major elective bowel surgery in an Australian metropolitan hospital, January 2016-December 2018. Outcome measures included rate of anaemia, guideline compliance, hospital length of stay, and transfusion rate. RESULTS: Preoperative anaemia assessment occurred in 82.6% of patients. However, only 5.2% received recommended biochemical tests at least one week before surgery. Only 25.2% of anaemic patients received preoperative treatment; they experienced a longer hospital length of stay (9.93 days versus 7.88 days, p < 0.001) and an increased rate of transfusion (OR: 3.186, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The gaps between current preoperative anaemia screening, management and national guidelines may place patients at higher risk of poor surgical outcome.

Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management: Barrier Identification and Implementation Strategy Mapping.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Patients undergoing major surgery risk significant blood loss and transfusion, which increases substantially if they have pre-existing anemia. Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management Pathways (PAIDSEM-P) outline recommended blood tests and treatment to optimize patients before surgery. Documented success using PAIDSEM-P to reduce transfusions and improve patient outcomes exists, but the reporting quality of such studies is suboptimal. It remains unclear what implementation strategies best support the implementation of PAIDSEM-P. METHOD: Maximum variation, purposive sampling was used to recruit a total of 15 participants, including a range of health professionals and patients for semi-structured interviews. Data analysis utilized a deductive approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for barrier identification and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) for reporting recommended implementation strategies. A modified version of the Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time (AACTT) framework assisted with conceptualisation and targeted strategy selection. RESULTS: The analysis revealed five barriers: access to knowledge and information, patient needs and resources, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, available resources, and networks and communications, which had strong ERIC recommendations, including conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, distribute educational materials, obtain and use patients/consumers family feedback, involve patients/consumers/family members, conduct a local needs assessment, access new funding, promote network weaving, and organize clinician implementation team meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Mapping the barriers and strategies using the ERIC framework on the basis of individual actor categories proved to be useful in identifying a pragmatic number of implementation strategies that may help in supporting the utilisation of the PAIDSEM-P and other evidence-based healthcare implementation problems more broadly.

Preoperative Anemia Screening and Treatment Practices in Patients Having Total Joint Replacement Surgery: A Retrospective, Observational Audit.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients with preoperative anemia are more likely to experience adverse outcomes. Patient blood management (PBM) guidelines recommend screening and treating patients for anemia preoperatively to enable optimisation before surgery. This study investigates compliance with PBM guidelines and reports the association between length of stay and transfusion risk in patients with preoperative anemia. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective, observational, chart audit that included all patients having primary, total hip and knee replacement surgery between July-December 2018 at a tertiary, metropolitan healthcare facility. RESULTS: Six hundred and seven patients patients were included, 96% (n = 583) patients had blood tests available (full blood count), and 8.1% (n = 49) had iron studies. Most patients 53% (n = 324) were screened between 2 and 6 days before surgery; 14.6% (n = 85) were anaemic preoperatively and only 5.9% (n = 5) of anaemic patients received treatment. Patients who had anemia preoperatively were more likely to receive a blood transfusion (odds ratio 8.65 [95% CI 3.98-18.76]) and stayed longer in hospital (median difference = 1, χ2 LR = 17.2, df=1, p<0.007). CONCLUSION: Tests ordered for patients having major surgery should include iron studies, renal function, CRP and full blood count to enable detection and classification of preoperative anemia. Timing of screening relative to surgery needs to be sufficient to allow patient optimisation to occur. Appropriate treatment should be provided to anaemic patients to prevent unnecessary blood transfusions and reduce the length of stay. A standardised preoperative anemia pathway may assist in improving practice.

Overcoming barriers to evidence-based patient blood management: a restricted review.

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are associated with a range of adverse patient outcomes, including coagulopathy, immunomodulation and haemolysis, which increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. Consideration of these risks and potential benefits are necessary when deciding to transfuse. Patient blood management (PBM) guidelines exist to assist in clinical decision-making, but they are underutilised. Exploration of barriers to the implementation and utilisation of the PBM guidelines is required. This study aimed to identify common barriers and implementation strategies used to implement PBM guidelines, with a comparison against current expert opinion. METHODS: A restricted review approach was used to identify the barriers to PBM guideline implementation as reported by health professionals and to review which implementation strategies have been used. Searches were undertaken in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane library. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to code barriers. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool was used to code implementation strategies, and subsequently, develop recommendations based on expert opinion. RESULTS: We identified 14 studies suitable for inclusion. There was a cluster of barriers commonly reported: access to knowledge and information (n = 7), knowledge and beliefs about the intervention ( = 7) and tension for change (n = 6). Implementation strategies used varied widely (n = 25). Only one study reported the use of an implementation theory, model or framework. Most studies (n = 11) had at least 50% agreement with the ERIC recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There are common barriers experienced by health professionals when trying to implement PBM guidelines. There is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest which implementation strategies are most effective. Further research using validated implementation approaches and improved reporting is required.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of perioperative hypothermia prevention practices from the perspectives of the multidisciplinary team: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Purpose: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a significant problem for surgical patients globally, and is associated with many detrimental side-effects. Despite the availability of rigorously developed international evidence-based guidelines for prevention, a high incidence of this complication persists. This qualitative study aims to identify and examine the domains which act as barriers and enablers to perioperative hypothermia prevention practices, from the perspectives of the key healthcare professionals involved with perioperative temperature management. Methods: A qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews was utilized. A purposive sample of key stakeholders involved in perioperative temperature management, including perioperative nurses, anesthetists, surgeons, and perioperative managers, were recruited via email. The interview guide was developed in reference to the Theoretical Domains Framework. All interviews were recorded, de-identified, transcribed, and coded. Belief statements were generated within each domain, and a frequency score generated for each belief. Finally, the domains were mapped to the COM-B model of the Behavior Change Wheel to develop recommendations for future interventions. Results: Twelve participants were included including eight nurses, two surgeons, and two anesthetists. Eleven key theoretical domains that influence the uptake of perioperative hypothermia practices were identified: knowledge; skills; social/professional role and identity; beliefs about capabilities; optimism; beliefs about consequences; reinforcement; goals; memory, attention, and decision processes; environmental context and resources; social influence. Suggested intervention strategies include training, reminder systems, audit, and feedback, organizational support to resolve lack of control of ambient temperature, as well as provision of accurate temperature measurement devices. Conclusion: Future interventions to address the key behavioral domains and improve perioperative hypothermia prevention need to be evaluated in the context of feasibility, effectiveness, safety, acceptability, and cost by the target users. All suggested intervention strategies need to take a team-based, multi-modal approach, as this is most likely to facilitate improvements in perioperative hypothermia prevention.