Prioritizing Health Care Solutions for Pressure Ulcers Using the Quality Function Deployment Process.

Reducing the incidence and morbidity of pressure ulcers remains a leading national priority in patient safety. However, the optimal strategy for a hospital or health system to address this safety goal is not straightforward given the number and complexity of available solutions. Leveraging techniques from systems engineering, such as the quality function deployment process, may provide a transparent and objective way to address this challenge. A detailed and practical application of quality function deployment is presented that demonstrates the value of applying engineering practices for prioritizing solutions for pressures ulcers specifically and can easily be adapted to other conditions.

Intensive care unit providers more quickly and accurately assess risk of multiple harms using an engineered safety display.

Project Emerge took a systems engineering approach to reduce avoidable harm in the intensive care unit. We developed a socio-technology solution to aggregate and display information relevant to preventable patient harm. We compared providers' efficiency and ability to assess and assimilate data associated with patient-safety practice compliance using the existing electronic health record to Emerge, and evaluated for speed, accuracy, and the number of mouse clicks required. When compared to the standard electronic health record, clinicians were faster (529 ± 210 s vs 1132 ± 344 s), required fewer mouse clicks (42.3 ± 15.3 vs 101.3 ± 33.9), and were more accurate (24.8 ± 2.7 of 28 correct vs 21.2 ± 2.9 of 28 correct) when using Emerge. All results were statistically significant at a p-value < 0.05 using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (n = 18). Emerge has the potential to make clinicians more productive and patients safer by reducing the time and errors when obtaining information to reduce preventable harm.

Developing a Comprehensive Model of Intensive Care Unit Processes: Concept of Operations.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to use a systems engineering approach to improve performance and stakeholder engagement in the intensive care unit to reduce several different patient harms. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework or concept of operations (ConOps) to analyze different types of harm that included 4 steps as follows: risk assessment, appropriate therapies, monitoring and feedback, as well as patient and family communications. This framework used a transdisciplinary approach to inventory the tasks and work flows required to eliminate 7 common types of harm experienced by patients in the intensive care unit. The inventory gathered both implicit and explicit information about how the system works or should work and converted the information into a detailed specification that clinicians could understand and use. PROTOTYPE CONOPS TO ELIMINATE HARM: Using the ConOps document, we created highly detailed work flow models to reduce harm and offer an example of its application to deep venous thrombosis. In the deep venous thrombosis model, we identified tasks that were synergistic across different types of harm. We will use a system of systems approach to integrate the variety of subsystems and coordinate processes across multiple types of harm to reduce the duplication of tasks. Through this process, we expect to improve efficiency and demonstrate synergistic interactions that ultimately can be applied across the spectrum of potential patient harms and patient locations. CONCLUSIONS: Engineering health care to be highly reliable will first require an understanding of the processes and work flows that comprise patient care. The ConOps strategy provided a framework for building complex systems to reduce patient harm.

An informatics research agenda to support patient and family empowerment and engagement in care and recovery during and after hospitalization.

As part of an interdisciplinary acute care patient portal task force with members from 10 academic medical centers and professional organizations, we held a national workshop with 71 attendees representing over 30 health systems, professional organizations, and technology companies. Our consensus approach identified 7 key sociotechnical and evaluation research focus areas related to the consumption and capture of information from patients, care partners (eg, family, friends), and clinicians through portals in the acute and post-acute care settings. The 7 research areas were: (1) standards, (2) privacy and security, (3) user-centered design, (4) implementation, (5) data and content, (6) clinical decision support, and (7) measurement. Patient portals are not yet in routine use in the acute and post-acute setting, and research focused on the identified domains should increase the likelihood that they will deliver benefit, especially as there are differences between needs in acute and post-acute care compared to the ambulatory setting.

Acute care patient portals: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives on current practices.

OBJECTIVE: To describe current practices and stakeholder perspectives of patient portals in the acute care setting. We aimed to: (1) identify key features, (2) recognize challenges, (3) understand current practices for design, configuration, and use, and (4) propose new directions for investigation and innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mixed methods including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and site visits with stakeholders at leading academic medical centers. Thematic analyses to inform development of an explanatory model and recommendations. RESULTS: Site surveys were administered to 5 institutions. Thirty interviews/focus groups were conducted at 4 site visits that included a total of 84 participants. Ten themes regarding content and functionality, engagement and culture, and access and security were identified, from which an explanatory model of current practices was developed. Key features included clinical data, messaging, glossary, patient education, patient personalization and family engagement tools, and tiered displays. Four actionable recommendations were identified by group consensus. DISCUSSION: Design, development, and implementation of acute care patient portals should consider: (1) providing a single integrated experience across care settings, (2) humanizing the patient-clinician relationship via personalization tools, (3) providing equitable access, and (4) creating a clear organizational mission and strategy to achieve outcomes of interest. CONCLUSION: Portals should provide a single integrated experience across the inpatient and ambulatory settings. Core functionality includes tools that facilitate communication, personalize the patient, and deliver education to advance safe, coordinated, and dignified patient-centered care. Our findings can be used to inform a "road map" for future work related to acute care patient portals.

Mericitabine and ritonavir-boosted danoprevir with or without ribavirin in treatment-naive HCV genotype 1 patients: INFORM-SVR study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Safety and tolerability of peginterferon-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection therapy remains suboptimal, even when direct-acting antiviral agents are added. This study assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of mericitabine combined with ritonavir-boosted danoprevir (danoprevir/r) ± ribavirin for up to 24 weeks in treatment-naïve HCV genotype (G)1 infected patients. METHODS: Patients received twice daily mericitabine (1000 mg) and danoprevir/r (100 mg/100 mg) plus either ribavirin (1000/1200 mg/day; Arm A) or placebo (Arm B) for 12 or 24 weeks. Patients with HCV RNA <43 IU/ml between Weeks 2 and 8 and HCV RNA <15 IU/ml at Week 10 were rerandomized (1:1) at Week 12 to discontinue/continue assigned regimens until Week 24. Because of unacceptable relapse rates in both 12-week arms and in ribavirin-free Arm B, treatment was extended to 24 weeks and patients in Arm B received peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 24 weeks after end of treatment (SVR24). RESULTS: In Arm A, the SVR24 rate in patients receiving 24 weeks of therapy was 37.9% (25/66); 63.6% (14/22) in G1b and 25.0% (11/44) in G1a patients. Virologic breakthrough and relapse were associated with danoprevir-resistant virus in most cases. The mericitabine-resistance mutation (NS5BS282T) was detected in two patients bearing dual resistant virus NS3 R155K/NS5B S282T and dual resistance mutation L159F/L320F in one patient. Treatment was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Mericitabine, danoprevir/r plus ribavirin for 24 weeks were safe and well tolerated. However, SVR rates were poor, achieving rates of only 25.0% in G1a and 63.6% in G1b patients.