Developing Process Maps as a Tool for a Surgical Infection Prevention Quality Improvement Initiative in Resource-Constrained Settings.

BACKGROUND: Surgical infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). To improve adherence to critical perioperative infection prevention standards, we developed Clean Cut, a checklist-based quality improvement program to improve compliance with best practices. We hypothesized that process mapping infection prevention activities can help clinicians identify strategies for improving surgical safety. STUDY DESIGN: We introduced Clean Cut at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. Infection prevention standards included skin antisepsis, ensuring a sterile field, instrument decontamination/sterilization, prophylactic antibiotic administration, routine swab/gauze counting, and use of a surgical safety checklist. Processes were mapped by a visiting surgical fellow and local operating theater staff to facilitate the development of contextually relevant solutions; processes were reassessed for improvements. RESULTS: Process mapping helped identify barriers to using alcohol-based hand solution due to skin irritation, inconsistent administration of prophylactic antibiotics due to variable delivery outside of the operating theater, inefficiencies in assuring sterility of surgical instruments through lack of confirmatory measures, and occurrences of retained surgical items through inappropriate guidelines, staffing, and training in proper routine gauze counting. Compliance with most processes improved significantly following organizational changes to align tasks with specific process goals. CONCLUSIONS: Enumerating the steps involved in surgical infection prevention using a process mapping technique helped identify opportunities for improving adherence and plotting contextually relevant solutions, resulting in superior compliance with antiseptic standards. Simplifying these process maps into an adaptable tool could be a powerful strategy for improving safe surgery delivery in LMICs.

A Systematic Intervention To Improve Serious Illness Communication In Primary Care.

Improving communication about goals and values for patients with advancing serious illness nearing the end of life is a key opportunity to improve the value of care. The Serious Illness Care Program, implemented at primary care clinics affiliated with Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is a multicomponent intervention designed to support best practices in communication by clinicians to increase conversations with patients with serious illness about their goals and values. We conducted a study of the program in fourteen primary care clinics participating in a high-risk care management program based in an accountable care organization. Patients in the clinics with the program implemented were more likely than those in comparison clinics to have serious illness conversations-including discussion of values and goals-documented in patients' medical records. Clinicians who participated also reported high satisfaction with training they received as part of the program, which they regarded as effective. This work suggests that the Serious Illness Care Program promotes more and better conversations among selected primary care patients, and it highlights the need for further research.

Improving Communication About Serious Illness in Primary Care: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The Institute of Medicine recently called for systematic improvements in clinician-led conversations about goals, values, and care preferences for patients with serious and life-threatening illnesses. Studies suggest that these conversations are associated with improved outcomes for patients and their families, enhanced clinician satisfaction, and lower health care costs; however, the role of primary care clinicians in driving conversations about goals and priorities in serious illness is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To present a review of a structured search of the evidence base about communication in serious illness in primary care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE was searched, via PubMed, on January 19, 2016, finding 911 articles; 126 articles were reviewed and selected titles were added from bibliography searches. FINDINGS: Review of the literature informed 2 major topic areas: the role of primary care in communication about serious illness and clinician barriers and system failures that interfere with effective communication. Literature regarding the role that primary care plays in communication focused primarily on the ambiguity about whether primary care clinicians or specialists are responsible for initiating conversations, the benefits of primary care clinicians and specialists conducting conversations, and the quantity and quality of discussions. Timely and effective communication about serious illness in primary care is hampered by key clinician barriers, which include deficits in knowledge, skills, and attitudes; discomfort with prognostication; and lack of clarity about the appropriate timing and initiation of conversations. Finally, system failures in coordination, documentation, feedback, and quality improvement contribute to lack of conversations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinician and system barriers will challenge primary care clinicians and institutions to meet the needs of patients with serious illness. Ensuring that conversations about goals and values occur at the appropriate time for seriously ill patients will require improved training, validation, and dissemination of patient selection tools, systems for conducting and revisiting conversations, accessible documentation, and incentives for measurement, feedback, and continuous improvement.

Surgeons' Perspectives on Avoiding Nonbeneficial Treatments in Seriously Ill Older Patients with Surgical Emergencies: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decisions for seriously ill older patients with surgical emergencies are highly complex. Measuring the benefits of burdensome treatments in this context is fraught with uncertainty. Little is known about how surgeons formulate treatment decisions to avoid nonbeneficial surgery, or engage in preoperative conversations about end-of-life (EOL) care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe how surgeons approach such discussions, and to identify modifiable factors to reduce nonbeneficial surgery near the EOL. DESIGN: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit a national sample of emergency general surgeons. Semistructured interviews were conducted between February and May 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Three independent coders performed qualitative coding using NVivo software (NVivo version 10.0, QSR International). Content analysis was used to identify factors important to surgical decision making and EOL communication. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons were interviewed. Participants felt responsible for conducting EOL conversations with seriously ill older patients and their families before surgery to prevent nonbeneficial treatments. However, wide differences in prognostic estimates among surgeons, inadequate data about postoperative quality of life (QOL), patients and surrogates who were unprepared for EOL conversations, variation in perceptions about the role of palliative care, and time constraints are contributors to surgeons providing nonbeneficial operations. Surgeons reported performing operations they knew would not benefit the patient to give the family time to come to terms with the patient's demise. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency general surgeons feel responsible for having preoperative discussions about EOL care with seriously ill older patients to avoid nonbenefical surgery. However, surgeons identified multiple factors that undermine adequate communication and lead to nonbeneficial surgery.

Recommendations for Best Communication Practices to Facilitate Goal-concordant Care for Seriously Ill Older Patients With Emergency Surgical Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To address the need for improved communication practices to facilitate goal-concordant care in seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Improved communication is increasingly recognized as a central element in providing goal-concordant care and reducing health care utilization and costs among seriously ill older patients. Given high rates of surgery in the last weeks of life, high risk of poor outcomes after emergency operations in these patients, and barriers to quality communication in the acute setting, we sought to create a framework to support surgeons in communicating with seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 23 national leaders was convened for a 1-day conference at Harvard Medical School to provide input on concept, content, format, and usability of a communication framework. A prototype framework was created. RESULTS: Participants supported the concept of a structured approach to communication in these scenarios, and delineated 9 key elements of a framework: (1) formulating prognosis, (2) creating a personal connection, (3) disclosing information regarding the acute problem in the context of the underlying illness, (4) establishing a shared understanding of the patient's condition, (5) allowing silence and dealing with emotion, (6) describing surgical and palliative treatment options, (7) eliciting patient's goals and priorities, (8) making a treatment recommendation, and (9) affirming ongoing support for the patient and family. CONCLUSIONS: Communication with seriously ill patients in the acute setting is difficult. The proposed communication framework may assist surgeons in delivering goal-concordant care for high-risk patients.