Risk assessment of the acute stroke diagnostic process using failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To date, many emergency department (ED)-based quality improvement studies and interventions for acute stroke patients have focused on expediting time-sensitive treatments, particularly reducing door-to-needle time. However, prior to treatment, a diagnosis of stroke must be reached. The ED-based stroke diagnostic process has been understudied despite its importance in assuring high-quality and safe care. METHODS: We used a learning collaborative to conduct a failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) of the acute stroke diagnostic process at three health systems in Chicago, IL. Our FMECA was designed to prospectively identify, characterize, and rank order failures in the systems and processes of care that offer opportunities for redesign to improve stroke diagnostic accuracy. Multidisciplinary teams involved in stroke care at five different sites participated in moderated sessions to create an acute stroke diagnostic process map as well as identify failures and existing safeguards. For each failure, a risk priority number and criticality score were calculated. Failures were then ranked, with the highest scores representing the most critical failures to be targeted for redesign. RESULTS: A total of 28 steps were identified in the acute stroke diagnostic process. Iterative steps in the process include information gathering, clinical examination, interpretation of diagnostic test results, and reassessment. We found that failure to use existing screening scales to identify patients with large-vessel occlusions early on in their ED course ranked highest. Failure to obtain an accurate history of the index event, failure to suspect acute stroke in triage, and failure to use established stroke screening tools at ED arrival to identify potential stroke patients were also highly ranked. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results highlight the critical importance of upstream steps in the acute stroke diagnostic process, particularly the use of existing tools to identify stroke patients who may be eligible for time-sensitive treatments.

Implementation and modification of an organizational-level intervention: a prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Modifications to interventions can jeopardize intervention outcomes. Pre-existing perceived barriers and facilitators to the intervention arising in the implementation preparation phase may help explain why modifications to the intervention may occur during the implementation phase. This two-site comparative case study describes modifications made to a complex organizational-level intervention and examines how known implementation science factors may have enabled such changes to occur. METHODS: Northwestern Medicine'sTM Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) is a culturally competent transplant center-based intervention designed to reduce disparities in living donor kidney transplantation among Hispanics. In-depth qualitative interviews and discussions were longitudinally conducted with transplant stakeholders (i.e., physicians, administrators, clinicians) at two kidney transplant programs with large Hispanic populations during implementation preparation and implementation phases. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview design and qualitative analysis, and Stirman's Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) guided modification classification. RESULTS: Across sites, 57 stakeholders participated in an interview, group discussion, and/or learning collaborative discussion. Site-B made more modifications than Site-A (n = 29 versus n = 18). Sites differed in the proportions of delaying/skipping (Site-A 50% versus Site-B 28%) and adding (Site-A 11% versus Site-B 28%) but had comparable substituting (Site-A 17% versus Site-B 17%) and tweaking (Site-A 17% versus Site-B 14%) modification types. Across sites, the transplant team consistently initiated the most modifications (Site-A 66%; Site-B 62%). While individuals initiated slightly more modifications at Site-B (21% versus Site-A 17%), institutions instigated proportionately slightly more modifications at Site-A (17% versus Site-B 10%). CFIR inner setting factors (i.e., structural characteristics, culture, available resources, implementation climate) that prominently emerged during the implementation preparation phase explained similarities and differences in sites' modification numbers, types, and agents in the implementation phase. CONCLUSION: Organizations implementing a culturally competent care intervention made modifications. CFIR inner setting factors emerging in the implementation preparation phase largely explained similarities and differences in study sites' modifications. Identifying factors contributing to modifications may help institutions become better prepared to implement an intervention by addressing known factors in advance, which may foster greater fidelity leading to desired outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03276390 . We registered the study retrospectively on 9-7-17.

Door-In-Door-Out Process Times at Primary Stroke Centers in Chicago.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute stroke patients often require interfacility transfer from primary stroke centers to comprehensive stroke centers. Given the time-sensitive benefits of endovascular reperfusion, reducing door-in-door-out time at the primary stroke center is a target for quality improvement. We sought to identify modifiable predictors of door-in-door-out times at 3 Chicago-region primary stroke centers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with acute stroke from February 1, 2018 to January 31, 2020 who required transfer from 1 of 3 primary stroke centers to 1 of 3 affiliated comprehensive stroke centers in the Chicago region. Stroke coordinators at each primary stroke center abstracted data on type of transport, medical interventions and treatments prior to transfer, and relevant time intervals from patient arrival to departure. We evaluated predictors of door-in-door-out time using median regression models. RESULTS: Of 191 total patients, 67.9% arrived by emergency medical services and 57.4% during off-hours. Telestroke was performed in 84.2%, 30.5% received alteplase, and 48.4% underwent a computed tomography (CT) angiography at the primary stroke center. The median door-in-door-out time was 148.5 (interquartile range 106 to 207.8) minutes. The largest contributors to door-in-door-out time, in minutes, were CT to CT angiography time (22 [7 to 73.5]), transfer center contact to ambulance request time (20 [8 to 53.3]), ambulance request to arrival time (20.5 [14 to 36]), and transfer ambulance time at primary stroke center (26 [21 to 35]). Factors associated with door-in-door-out time were (adjusted median differences, in minutes [95% confidence intervals]): CT angiography performed at primary stroke center (+39 [12.3 to 65.7]), walk-in arrival mode (+53 [4.1 to 101.9]), administration of intravenous alteplase (-29 [-31.3 to -26.7]), intubation at primary stroke center (+23 [7.3 to 38.7]), and ambulance request by primary stroke center (-20 [-34.3 to -5.7]). CONCLUSION: Door-in-door-out times at Chicago-area primary stroke centers average nearly 150 minutes. Reducing time to CT angiography, receipt of alteplase, and ambulance request are likely important modifiable targets for interventions to decrease door-in-door-out times at primary stroke centers.

Implementing culturally competent transplant care and implications for reducing health disparities: A prospective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite available evidence-based interventions that decrease health disparities, these interventions are often not implemented. Northwestern Medicine's® Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) is a culturally and linguistically competent intervention designed to reduce disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) among Hispanics/Latinos. The HKTP was introduced in two transplant programs in 2016 to evaluate its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed barriers and facilitators to HKTP implementation preparation. METHODS: Interviews and group discussions were conducted with transplant stakeholders (ie administrators, nurses, physicians) during implementation preparation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview design and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four stakeholders participated in 24 interviews and/or 27 group discussions. New factors, not found in previous implementation preparation research in health-care settings, emerged as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of culturally competent care. Implementation facilitators included: stakeholders' focus on a moral imperative to implement the HKTP, personal motivations related to their Hispanic heritage, and perceptions of Hispanic patients' transplant education needs. Implementation barriers included: stakeholders' perceptions that Hispanics' health insurance payer mix would negatively impact revenue, a lack of knowledge about LDKT disparities and patient data disaggregated by ethnicity/race, and a perception that the family discussion component was immoral because of the possibility of coercion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified novel barriers and facilitators to the implementation preparation of a culturally competent care intervention. Healthcare administrators can facilitate organizations' implementation of culturally competent care interventions by understanding factors challenging care delivery processes and raising clinical team awareness of disparities in LDKT.