Standardization in patient safety: the WHO High 5s project.

QUALITY PROBLEM: Despite its success in other industries, process standardization in health care has been slow to gain traction or to demonstrate a positive impact on the safety of care. INTERVENTION: The High 5s project is a global patient safety initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO) to facilitate the development, implementation and evaluation of Standard Operating Protocols (SOPs) within a global learning community to achieve measurable, significant and sustainable reductions in challenging patient safety problems. GOALS: The project seeks to answer two questions: (i) Is it feasible to implement standardized health care processes in individual hospitals, among multiple hospitals within individual countries and across country boundaries? (ii) If so, what is the impact of standardization on the safety problems that the project is targeting? METHOD: The two key areas in which the High 5s project is innovative are its use of process standardization both in hospitals within a country and in multiple participating countries, and its carefully designed multi-pronged approach to evaluation. STATUS: Three SOPs-correct surgery, medication reconciliation, concentrated injectable medicines-have been developed and are being implemented and evaluated in multiple hospitals in seven participating countries. Nearly 5 years into the implementation, it is clear that this is just the beginning of what can be seen as an exercise in behavior management, asking whether health care workers can adapt their behaviors and environments to standardize care processes in widely varying hospital settings.

High-reliability health care: getting there from here.

CONTEXT: Despite serious and widespread efforts to improve the quality of health care, many patients still suffer preventable harm every day. Hospitals find improvement difficult to sustain, and they suffer "project fatigue" because so many problems need attention. No hospitals or health systems have achieved consistent excellence throughout their institutions. High-reliability science is the study of organizations in industries like commercial aviation and nuclear power that operate under hazardous conditions while maintaining safety levels that are far better than those of health care. Adapting and applying the lessons of this science to health care offer the promise of enabling hospitals to reach levels of quality and safety that are comparable to those of the best high-reliability organizations. METHODS: We combined the Joint Commission's knowledge of health care organizations with knowledge from the published literature and from experts in high-reliability industries and leading safety scholars outside health care. We developed a conceptual and practical framework for assessing hospitals' readiness for and progress toward high reliability. By iterative testing with hospital leaders, we refined the framework and, for each of its fourteen components, defined stages of maturity through which we believe hospitals must pass to reach high reliability. FINDINGS: We discovered that the ways that high-reliability organizations generate and maintain high levels of safety cannot be directly applied to today's hospitals. We defined a series of incremental changes that hospitals should undertake to progress toward high reliability. These changes involve the leadership's commitment to achieving zero patient harm, a fully functional culture of safety throughout the organization, and the widespread deployment of highly effective process improvement tools. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals can make substantial progress toward high reliability by undertaking several specific organizational change initiatives. Further research and practical experience will be necessary to determine the validity and effectiveness of this framework for high-reliability health care.

Developing performance measures for patient blood management.

In 2005, The Joint Commission set about assessing the need for performance measures associated with the provision of blood products. Through a rigorous process, seven patient blood management performance measures were created. These measures incorporated a measure requiring transfusion consent; three measures requiring the combination of a laboratory value and a rationale for transfusion of plasma, platelets, or red blood cells; a measure requiring standard documentation about a transfusion; a measure evaluating preoperative anemia screening; and a measure of preoperative type screening and antibody testing before the start of major blood loss surgery. This article describes the process of this measure development and summarizes the final measures and some of the evidence supporting the measures.

Hospital performance trends on national quality measures and the association with Joint Commission accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of the impact of hospital accreditation have been previously hampered by the lack of nationally standardized data. One way to assess this impact is to compare accreditation status with other evidence-based measures of quality, such as the process measures now publicly reported by The Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between Joint Commission accreditation status and both absolute measures of, and trends in, hospital performance on publicly reported quality measures for common diseases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Performance data for 2004 and 2008 from U.S. acute care and critical access hospitals were obtained using publicly available CMS Hospital Compare data augmented with Joint Commission performance data. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in hospital performance between 2004 and 2008, and percent of hospitals with 2008 performance exceeding 90% for 16 measures of quality-of-care and 4 summary scores. RESULTS: Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission tended to have better baseline performance in 2004 than non-accredited hospitals. Accredited hospitals had larger gains over time, and were significantly more likely to have high performance in 2008 on 13 out of 16 standardized clinical performance measures and all summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: While Joint Commission-accredited hospitals already outperformed non-accredited hospitals on publicly reported quality measures in the early days of public reporting, these differences became significantly more pronounced over 5 years of observation. Future research should examine whether accreditation actually promotes improved performance or is a marker for other hospital characteristics associated with such performance. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011;6:458-465. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.

The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff.

OBJECTIVE: To assess perceptions about the value and impact of publicly reporting hospital performance measure data. DESIGN: Qualitative research. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Administrators, physicians, nurses and other front-line staff from 29 randomly selected Joint Commission-accredited hospitals reporting core performance measure data. METHODS: Structured focus-group interviews were conducted to gather hospital staff perceptions of the perceived impact of publicly reporting performance measure data. RESULTS: Interviews revealed six common themes. Publicly reporting data: (i) led to increased involvement of leadership in performance improvement; (ii) created a sense of accountability to both internal and external customers; (iii) contributed to a heightened awareness of performance measure data throughout the hospital; (iv) influenced or re-focused organizational priorities; (v) raised concerns about data quality and (vi) led to questions about consumer understanding of performance reports. Few differences were noted in responses based on hospitals' performance on the measures. CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of performance measure data appears to motivate and energize organizations to improve or maintain high levels of performance. Despite commonly cited concerns over the limitations, validity and interpretability of publicly reported data, the heightened awareness of the data intensified the focus on performance improvement activities. As the healthcare industry has moved toward greater transparency and accountability, healthcare professionals have responded by re-prioritizing hospital quality improvement efforts to address newly exposed gaps in care.

The ongoing quality improvement journey: next stop, high reliability.

Quality improvement in health care has a long history that includes such epic figures as Ignaz Semmelweis, the nineteenth-century obstetrician who introduced hand washing to medical care, and Florence Nightingale, the English nurse who determined that poor living conditions were a leading cause of the deaths of soldiers at army hospitals. Systematic and sustained improvement in clinical quality in particular has a more brief and less heroic trajectory. Over the past fifty years, a variety of approaches have been tried, with only limited success. More recently, some health care organizations began to adopt the lessons of high-reliability science, which studies organizations such as those in the commercial aviation industry, which manage great hazard extremely well. We review the evolution of quality improvement in US health care and propose a framework that hospitals and other organizations can use to move toward high reliability.

Reducing health care hazards: lessons from the commercial aviation safety team.

The movement to improve quality of care and patient safety has grown, but examples of measurable and sustained progress are rare. The slow progress made in health care contrasts with the success of aviation safety. After a tragic 1995 plane crash, the aviation industry and government created the Commercial Aviation Safety Team to reduce fatal accidents. This public-private partnership of safety officials and technical experts is responsible for the decreased average rate of fatal aviation accidents. We propose a similar partnership in the health care community to coordinate national efforts and move patient safety and quality forward.

Case volume and hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care.

BACKGROUND: For many complex cardiovascular procedures the well-established link between volume and outcome has rested on the underlying assumption that experience leads to more reliable implementation of the processes of care which have been associated with better clinical outcomes. This study tested that assumption by examining the relationship between cardiovascular case volumes and the implementation of twelve basic evidence-based processes of cardiovascular care. METHOD AND RESULTS: Observational analysis of over 3000 US hospitals submitting cardiovascular performance indicator data to The Joint Commission on during 2005. Hospitals were grouped together based upon their annual case volumes and indicator rates were calculated for twelve standardized indicators of evidence-based processes of cardiovascular care (eight of which assessed evidenced-based processes for patients with acute myocardial infarction and four of which evaluated evidenced-based processes for heart failure patients). As case volume increased so did indicator rates, up to a statistical cut-point that was unique to each indicator (ranging from 12 to 287 annual cases). t-Test analyses and generalized linear mixed effects logistic regression were used to compare the performance of hospitals with case volumes above or below the statistical cut-point. Hospitals with case volumes that were above the cut-point had indicator rates that were, on an average, 10 percentage points higher than hospitals with case volumes below the cut-point (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hospitals treating fewer cardiovascular cases were significantly less likely to apply evidence-based processes of care than hospitals with larger case volumes, but only up to a statistically identifiable cut-point unique to each indicator.

Specifying and standardizing performance measures for use at a national level: implications for nursing-sensitive care performance measures.

This article explicates a comprehensive process for identifying, specifying, testing, and implementing nationally standardized performance measures. A growing body of research ties nurse staffing to patient outcomes, reinforcing the important role of nursing in the delivery of safe, efficacious health care. The Joint Commission has developed a multistep process to identify robust sets of evidence-based measures that includes a review of the evidence, expert advisory panel guidance, use of established criteria, public input and comment, and multistage field testing before implementation. This proven approach to the establishment of performance metrics is applicable to the identification and implementation of nurse-sensitive workforce measures. These metrics can then be used by providers to support performance improvement activities by health care stakeholders to monitor nurse staffing-related issues, and by researchers to better understand the relationship between staffing effectiveness and patient safety, and the quality of health care.

Hospital financial condition and operational decisions related to the quality of hospital care.

Financial pressure mounted for hospitals nationwide during the late 1990s. Our study examines how this affected the quality of their operations in terms of organizational infrastructure and processes that support the delivery of care. Our sample consisted of community hospitals operating between 1995 and 2000. Financial pressure was measured based on changes in net patient revenues per adjusted patient day and the ratio of cash flow to total revenues. The authors examined effects on hospital investments in plant and equipment and on hospital standards compliance with selected Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization performance areas. The results suggest that increasing financial pressures did lead to cutbacks in these areas. These findings suggest the importance of looking broadly across hospital operations to identify factors that may contribute to poor patient outcomes. Given the findings of earlier studies, these results suggest that poor outcomes may in part result from deterioration in supporting infrastructure and organizational processes.

Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the characteristics of adverse events between English speaking patients and patients with limited English proficiency in US hospitals. SETTING: Six Joint Commission accredited hospitals in the USA. METHOD: Adverse event data on English speaking patients and patients with limited English proficiency were collected from six hospitals over 7 months in 2005 and classified using the National Quality Forum endorsed Patient Safety Event Taxonomy. RESULTS: About 49.1% of limited English proficient patient adverse events involved some physical harm whereas only 29.5% of adverse events for patients who speak English resulted in physical harm. Of those adverse events resulting in physical harm, 46.8% of the limited English proficient patient adverse events had a level of harm ranging from moderate temporary harm to death, compared with 24.4% of English speaking patient adverse events. The adverse events that occurred to limited English proficient patients were also more likely to be the result of communication errors (52.4%) than adverse events for English speaking patients (35.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Language barriers appear to increase the risks to patient safety. It is important for patients with language barriers to have ready access to competent language services. Providers need to collect reliable language data at the patient point of entry and document the language services provided during the patient-provider encounter.

Assessing the integration of health center and community emergency preparedness and response planning.

BACKGROUND: To assess the state of health center integration into community preparedness, we undertook a national study of linkages between health centers and the emergency preparedness and response planning initiatives in their communities. The key objectives of this project were to gain a better understanding of existing linkages in a nationally representative sample of health centers, and identify health center demographic and experience factors that were associated with strong linkages. METHODS: The objectives of the study were to gain a baseline understanding of existing health center linkages to community emergency preparedness and response systems and to identify factors that were associated with strong linkages. A 60-item questionnaire was mailed to the population of health centers supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration's Bureau of Primary Health Care in February 2005. Results were aggregated and a chi square analysis identified factors associated with stronger linkages. RESULTS: Overall performance on study-defined indicators of strong linkages was low: 34% had completed a hazard vulnerability analysis in collaboration with the community emergency management agency, 30% had their role documented in the community plan, and 24% participated in community-wide exercises. Stronger linkages were associated with experience responding to a disaster and a perception of high risk for experiencing a disaster. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for health centers to participate in an integrated response is not fully realized, and their absence from community-based planning leaves an already vulnerable population at greater risk. Community planners should be encouraged to include health centers in planning and response and centers should receive more targeted resources for community integration.

Quality of care for the treatment of acute medical conditions in US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently began reporting on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia. METHODS: We linked performance data submitted for the first half of 2004 to American Hospital Association data on hospital characteristics. We created composite scales for each disease and used factor analysis to identify 2 additional composites based on underlying domains of quality. We estimated logistic regression models to examine the relationship between hospital characteristics and quality. RESULTS: Overall, 75.9% of patients hospitalized with these conditions received recommended care. The mean composite scores and their associated interquartile ranges were 0.85 (0.81-0.95), 0.64 (0.52-0.78), and 0.88 (0.80-0.97) for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia, respectively. After adjustment, for-profit hospitals consistently underperformed not-for-profit hospitals for each condition, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.80) for the congestive heart failure composite measure to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.91) for the pneumonia composite. Major teaching hospitals had better performance on the treatment and diagnosis composite (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.34-1.39) but worse performance on the counseling and prevention composite (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84). Hospitals with more technology available, higher registered nurse staffing, and federal/military designation had higher performance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are more likely to receive high-quality care in not-for-profit hospitals and in hospitals with high registered nurse staffing ratios and more investment in technology. Because payments and sources of payments affect some of these factors (eg, investments in technology and staffing ratios), policy makers should evaluate the effect of alternative payment approaches on quality.

Strategies for reducing the door-to-balloon time in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Prompt reperfusion treatment is essential for patients who have myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. Guidelines recommend that the interval between arrival at the hospital and intracoronary balloon inflation (door-to-balloon time) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention should be 90 minutes or less. However, few hospitals meet this objective. We sought to identify hospital strategies that were significantly associated with a faster door-to-balloon time. METHODS: We surveyed 365 hospitals to determine whether each of 28 specific strategies was in use. We used hierarchical generalized linear models and data on patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to determine the association between hospital strategies and the door-to-balloon time. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, six strategies were significantly associated with a faster door-to-balloon time. These strategies included having emergency medicine physicians activate the catheterization laboratory (mean reduction in door-to-balloon time, 8.2 minutes), having a single call to a central page operator activate the laboratory (13.8 minutes), having the emergency department activate the catheterization laboratory while the patient is en route to the hospital (15.4 minutes), expecting staff to arrive in the catheterization laboratory within 20 minutes after being paged (vs. >30 minutes) (19.3 minutes), having an attending cardiologist always on site (14.6 minutes), and having staff in the emergency department and the catheterization laboratory use real-time data feedback (8.6 minutes). Despite the effectiveness of these strategies, only a minority of hospitals surveyed were using them. CONCLUSIONS: Several specific hospital strategies are associated with a significant reduction in the door-to-balloon time in the management of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation.