Quality improvement exercises in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) services: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Quality Improvement initiatives aim to improve care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). These address a range of aspects of care including adherence to published guidelines. The objectives of this review were to document the scope and quality of published quality improvement initiatives in IBD, highlight successful interventions and the outcomes achieved. DESIGN/METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We included peer reviewed articles or conference proceedings reporting initiatives intended to improve the quality of IBD care, with both baseline and prospectively collected follow-up data. Initiatives were categorised based on problems, interventions and outcomes. We used the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set instrument to appraise articles. We mapped the focus of the articles to the six domains of the IBD standards. RESULTS: 100 studies were identified (35 full text; 65 conference abstracts). Many focused on vaccination, medication, screening, or meeting multiple quality measures. Common interventions included provider education, the development of new service protocols, or enhancements to the electronic medical records. Studies principally focused on areas covered by the IBD standards 'ongoing care' and 'the IBD service', with less focus on standards 'pre-diagnosis', 'newly diagnosed', 'flare management', 'surgery' or 'inpatient care'. CONCLUSION: Good quality evidence exists on approaches to improve the quality of a narrow range of IBD service functions, but there are many topic areas with little or no published quality improvement initiatives. We highlight successful quality improvement interventions and offer recommendations to improve reporting of future studies.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Development of an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM): A patient-led consensus work and 'think aloud' study for a quality improvement programme.

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are key in improving healthcare quality, but no PREM exists for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to co-produce a PREM with IBD service users for IBD service evaluation and quality improvement programme. METHODS: A pool of 75 items was drawn from published survey instruments covering interactions with services and aspects of living with IBD. In Stage 1, during two workshops, eight expert service users reduced candidate items through a ranked-choice voting exercise and suggested further items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD assessed the face and content validity of the candidate items in 'Think Aloud' interviews. During two final workshops (Stage 3), the expert service users removed, modified and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the PREM. RESULTS: Stage 1 generated a draft working PREM mapped to the following four domains: Patient-Centred Care; Quality; Accessibility; Communication and Involvement. The PREM included a set of nine items created by the expert group which shifted the emphasis from 'self-management' to 'living with IBD'. Stage 2 interviews showed that comprehension of the PREM was very good, although there were concerns about the wording, IBD-relevance and ambiguity of some items. During the final two workshops in Stage 3, the expert service users removed 7 items, modified 15 items and added seven new ones based on the interview findings, resulting in a 38-item PREM. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how extensive service user involvement can inform PREM development. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved as active members of the research team and as research participants to co-produce and validate a PREM for IBD services. In Stage 1, eight expert service users ('the expert group') reduced candidate items for the PREM through a voting exercise and suggested new items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD (the 'think aloud' participants) assessed the validity of the candidate items in 'Think Aloud' interviews as research participants. In Stage 3, the expert group removed, changed and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the 38-item PREM. This study shows how service user involvement can meaningfully inform PREM development.