Time to diagnostic certainty for saddle pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients.

There is a lack of diagnostic performance measures associated with pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to explore the concept of the time to diagnostic certainty, which we defined as the time interval that elapses between first presentation of a patient to a confirmed PE diagnosis with computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CT PA). This approach could be used to highlight variability in health system diagnostic performance, and to select patient outliers for structured chart review in order to identify underlying contributors to diagnostic error or delay. We performed a retrospective observational study at academic medical centers and associated community-based hospitals in one health system, examining randomly selected adult patients admitted to study sites with a diagnosis of acute saddle PE. One hundred patients were randomly selected from 340 patients discharged with saddle PE. Twenty-four patients were excluded. Among the 76 included patients, time to diagnostic certainty ranged from 1.5 to 310 hours. We found that 73/76 patients were considered to have PE present on admission (CT PA ≤ 48 hours). The proportion of patients with PE present on admission with time to diagnostic certainty of > 6 hours was 26% (19/73). The median (IQR) time to treatment (thrombolytics/anticoagulants) was 3.5 (2.5-5.1) hours among the 73 patients. The proportion of patients with PE present on admission with treatment delays of > 6 hours was 16% (12/73). Three patients acquired PE during hospitalization (CT PA > 48 hours). In this study, we developed and successfully tested the concept of time to diagnostic certainty for saddle PE.

Improving performance on core processes of care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article describes the recent literature on using extrinsic and intrinsic motivators to improve performance on core processes of care, highlighting literature that describes general frameworks for quality improvement work. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature supporting the effectiveness of extrinsic motivators to improve quality is generally positive for public reporting of performance, with mixed results for pay-for-performance. A four-element quality improvement framework developed by The Armstrong Institute at Johns Hopkins Medicine was developed with intrinsic motivation in mind. The clear definition and communication of goals are important for quality improvement work. Training clinicians in improvement science, such as lean sigma, teamwork, or culture change provides clinicians with the skills they need to drive the improvement work. Peer learning communities offer the opportunity for clinicians to engage with each other and offer support in their work. The transparent reporting of performance helps ensure accountability of performance ranging from individual clinicians to governance. SUMMARY: Quality improvement work that is led by and engages clinicians offers the opportunity for the work to be both meaningful and sustainable. The literature supports approaching quality improvement work in a systematic way, including the key elements of communication, infrastructure building, training, transparency, and accountability.