The association of nursing home quality ratings and spread of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected nursing home residents. Given the continued high incidence of COVID-19, and the likelihood that new variants and other infectious agents may cause future outbreaks, we sought to understand the relationship of nursing home quality ratings and measures of COVID-19 outbreak severity and persistence. DESIGN: We analyzed nursing home facility-level data on COVID-19 cases and deaths, county-level COVID-19 rates, and nursing home data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including ratings from the CMS Nursing Home Five-Star Quality Rating System. We used regression analysis to examine the association between star ratings and cumulative COVID-19 incidence and mortality as well as persistent high resident incidence. SETTING: All nursing homes in the CMS COVID-19 Nursing Home Dataset reporting data that passed quality assurance checks for at least 20 weeks and that were included in the January 2021 Nursing Home Care Compare update. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of the included nursing homes. MEASUREMENTS: Cumulative resident COVID-19 incidence and mortality through January 10, 2021; number of weeks with weekly resident incidence of COVID-19 in the top decile nationally. RESULTS: As of January 10, 2021, nearly all nursing homes (93.6%) had reported at least one case of COVID-19 among their residents, more than three-quarters (76.9%) had reported at least one resident death, and most (83.5%) had experienced at least 1 week in the top decile of weekly incidence. In analyses adjusted for facility and county-level characteristics, we found generally consistent relationships between higher nursing home quality ratings and lower COVID-19 incidence and mortality, as well as with fewer high-incidence weeks. CONCLUSION: Nursing home quality ratings are associated with COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and persistence. Nursing homes receiving five-star ratings, for overall quality as well as for each domain, had lower COVID-19 rates among their residents.

Association Between Time to Rehabilitation and Outcomes After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relations between time to rehabilitation after spinal cord injury (SCI) and rehabilitation outcomes at discharge and 1-year postinjury. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Facilities designated as Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=3937) experiencing traumatic SCI between 2000 and 2014, who were 18 years or older, and who were admitted to a model system within 24 hours of injury. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rasch-transformed FIM motor score at discharge and 1-year postinjury, discharge to a private residence, and the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART) Physical Independence and Mobility scores at 1-year postinjury. RESULTS: After accounting for health status, a 10% increase in time to rehabilitation was associated with a 1.50 lower FIM motor score at discharge (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.43 to -0.58; P=.001) and a 3.92 lower CHART Physical Independence score at 1-year postinjury (95% CI, -7.66 to -0.19; P=.04). Compared to the mean FIM motor score (37.5) and mean CHART Physical Independence score (74.7), the above-mentioned values represent relative declines of 4.0% and 5.3%, respectively. There was no association between time to rehabilitation and discharge to a private residence, 1-year FIM motor score, or the CHART mobility score. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier rehabilitation after traumatic SCI may improve patients' functional status at discharge.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement programme to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted quality improvement programme focused on reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model to compare programme to non-programme intensive care units. SETTING: USA. POPULATION: Adult patients in the intensive care unit. COSTS: Economic costs of the programme and of central line-associated bloodstream infections were estimated from the perspective of the hospital and presented in 2013 US dollars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central line-associated bloodstream infections prevented, deaths averted due to central line-associated bloodstream infections prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Compared with current practice, the programme is strongly dominant and reduces bloodstream infections and deaths at no additional cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was an almost 80% probability that the programme reduces bloodstream infections and the infections' economic costs to hospitals. The opportunity cost of a bloodstream infection to a hospital was the most important model parameter in these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This multifaceted quality improvement programme, as it is currently implemented by hospitals on an increasingly large scale in the USA, likely reduces the economic costs of central line-associated bloodstream infections for US hospitals. Awareness among hospitals about the programme's benefits should enhance implementation. The programme's implementation has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity, mortality and economic costs associated with central line-associated bloodstream infections.

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.

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.

A novel process for introducing a new intraoperative program: a multidisciplinary paradigm for mitigating hazards and improving patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Since the Institute of Medicine's report, To Err is Human, was published, numerous interventions have been designed and implemented to correct the defects that lead to medical errors and adverse events; however, most efforts were largely reactive. Safety, communication, team performance, and efficiency are areas of care that attract a great deal of attention, especially regarding the introduction of new technologies, techniques, and procedures. We describe a multidisciplinary process that was implemented at our hospital to identify and mitigate hazards before the introduction of a new technique: high-dose-rate intraoperative radiation therapy, (HDR-IORT). METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of surgeons, anesthesiologists, radiation oncologists, physicists, nurses, hospital risk managers, and equipment specialists used a structured process that included in situ clinical simulation to uncover concerns among care providers and to prospectively identify and mitigate defects for patients who would undergo surgery using the HDR-IORT technique. RESULTS: We identified and corrected 20 defects in the simulated patient care process before application to actual patients. Subsequently, eight patients underwent surgery using the HDR-IORT technique with no recurrence of simulation-identified or unanticipated defects. CONCLUSION: Multiple benefits were derived from the use of this systematic process to introduce the HDR-IORT technique; namely, the safety and efficiency of care for this select patient population was optimized, and this process mitigated harmful or adverse events before the inclusion of actual patients. Further work is needed, but the process outlined in this paper can be universally applied to the introduction of any new technologies, treatments, or procedures.