Interventions for improving critical care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the typology, impact, quality of evidence, barriers, and facilitators to implementation of Quality Improvement (QI) interventions for adult critical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 1st September 2022. The studies were included if they described the implementation of QI interventions for adult critical care in LMICs, available as full text, in English and published after 2000. The risks of bias were assessed using the ROB 2.0/ROBINS-I tools. Intervention strategies were categorised according to a Knowledge Translation framework. Interventions' effectiveness were synthesised by vote counting and assessed with a binomial test. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were narratively synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: 78 studies were included. Risk of bias was high. The most common intervention strategies were Education, Audit & Feedback (A&F) and Protocols/Guidelines/Bundles/Checklists (PGBC). Two multifaceted strategies improved both process and outcome measures: Education and A&F (p = 0.008); and PGBC with Education and A&F (p = 0.001, p < 0.001). Facilitators to implementation were stakeholder engagement, organisational readiness for implementation, and adaptability of interventions. Barriers were lack of resources and incompatibility with clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for QI in critical care in LMICs is sparse and at high risk of bias but suggests that multifaceted interventions are most effective. Co-designing interventions with and engaging stakeholders, communicating relative advantages, employing local champions and adapting to feedback can improve implementation. Hybrid study designs, process evaluations and adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the evidence base.

Perioperative medicine: challenges and solutions for global health.

The emerging field of perioperative medicine has the potential to make significant contributions to global health. Perioperative medicine aims to help reduce unmet surgical need, decrease variation in quality and systematically improve patient outcomes. These aims are also applicable to key challenges in global health, such as limited access to surgical care, variable quality and workforce shortages. This article describes the areas in which perioperative medicine can contribute to global health using case studies of successful care pathways, risk prediction tools, strategies for effective grassroots research and novel workforce approaches aimed at effectively using limited resources.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units.

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

Publishing quality improvement studies: learning to share and sharing to learn.

This editorial welcomes the decision of BJA Open to publish quality improvement (QI) studies. It summarises the current problems with conducting, evaluating, and publishing QI studies. It highlights existing guidance for prospective authors to follow regarding the reporting of QI interventions, their context(s), underlying theories, and evaluation. In so doing, we hope to encourage the publication of more QI studies of sufficient quality to facilitate learning or replication elsewhere.

A scoping review of local quality improvement using data from UK perioperative National Clinical Audits.

BACKGROUND: Significant resources are invested in the UK to collect data for National Clinical Audits (NCAs), but it is unclear whether and how they facilitate local quality improvement (QI). The perioperative setting is a unique context for QI due to its multidisciplinary nature and history of measurement. It is unclear which NCAs evaluate perioperative care, to what extent their data have been used for QI, and which factors influence this usage. METHODS: NCAs were identified from the directories held by Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP), Scottish Healthcare Audits and the Welsh National Clinical Audit and Outcome Review Advisory Committee. QI reports were identified by the following: systematically searching MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar and HMIC up to December 2019, hand-searching grey literature and consulting relevant stakeholders. We charted features describing both the NCAs and the QI reports and summarised quantitative data using descriptive statistics and qualitative themes using framework analysis. RESULTS: We identified 36 perioperative NCAs in the UK and 209 reports of local QI which used data from 19 (73%) of these NCAs. Six (17%) NCAs contributed 185 (89%) of these reports. Only one NCA had a registry of local QI projects. The QI reports were mostly brief, unstructured, often published by NCAs themselves and likely subject to significant reporting bias. Factors reported to influence local QI included the following: perceived data validity, measurement of clinical processes as well as outcomes, timely feedback, financial incentives, sharing of best practice, local improvement capabilities and time constraints of clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited public reporting of UK perioperative NCA data for local QI, despite evidence of improvement of most NCA metrics at the national level. It is therefore unclear how these improvements are being made, and it is likely that opportunities are being missed to share learning between local sites. We make recommendations for how NCAs could better support the conduct, evaluation and reporting of local QI and suggest topics which future research should investigate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42018092993 ).

The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.

Delivery of drinking, eating and mobilising (DrEaMing) and its association with length of hospital stay after major noncardiac surgery: observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways are associated with improved postoperative outcomes. However, as enhanced recovery pathways have become more complex and varied, compliance has reduced. The 'DrEaMing' bundle re-prioritises early postoperative delivery of drinking, eating, and mobilising. We investigated relationships between DrEaMing compliance, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in a prospective multicentre major surgical cohort. METHODS: We interrogated the UK Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme dataset. Analyses were conducted in four stages. In an exploratory cohort, we identified independent predictors of DrEaMing. We quantified the association between delivery of DrEaMing (and its component variables) and prolonged LOS in a homogenous colorectal subgroup and assessed generalisability in multispecialty patients. Finally, LOS and complications were compared across hospitals, stratified by DrEaMing compliance. RESULTS: The exploratory cohort comprised 22 218 records, the colorectal subgroup 7230, and the multispecialty subgroup 5713. DrEaMing compliance was 59% (13 112 patients), 60% (4341 patients), and 60% (3421), respectively, but varied substantially between hospitals. Delivery of DrEaMing predicted reduced odds of prolonged LOS in colorectal (odds ratio 0.51 [0.43-0.59], P<0.001) and multispecialty cohorts (odds ratio 0.47 [0.41-0.53], P<0.001). At the hospital level, complications were not the primary determinant of LOS after colorectal surgery, but consistent delivery of DrEaMing was associated with significantly shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of bundled and unbundled DrEaMing was associated with substantial reductions in postoperative LOS, independent of the effects of confounder variables. Consistency of process delivery, and not complications, predicted shorter hospital-level length of stay. DrEaMing may be adopted by perioperative health systems as a quality metric to support improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital length of stay.

Qualitative process evaluation of the Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) is designed to measure complications after major elective surgery and improve these through feedback of data to clinicians. Previous research suggests that despite the significant resources which go into collecting data for national clinical audits, the information they contain is not always used effectively to improve local services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a formative process evaluation of PQIP comprising a multisited qualitative study to analyse PQIP's programme theory, barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that influence implementation. The research will be carried out with the PQIP project team and six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected according to geographical location, type of hospital, size and level of engagement with PQIP. We will include one Trust which has not expressed interest in the PQIP for comparison and to explore the role of secular trend in any changes in practice. We will use semi-structured interviews (up to 144 in Trusts and 12 with the project team), non-participant observations (up to 150 hours) and documentary analysis. We will track the lifecycle of perioperative data, exploring the transformations it undergoes from creation to use. We will use framework analysis with categories both from our research questions and from themes emerging from the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted from the University College London Research Ethics Committee (ref 10375/001). Permissions to conduct research at NHS Trusts have been granted by local Research and Development offices in coordination with the Health Research Authority. We will follow guidelines for data security, confidentiality and information governance. Findings will be shared at regular time points with the PQIP project team to inform the implementation of the programme, and with participating NHS Trusts to help them reflect on how they currently use data for improvement of perioperative services.

Mixed-methods evaluation of the Perioperative Medicine Service for High-Risk Patients Implementation Pilot (POMSHIP): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative complications have a lasting effect on health-related quality of life and long-term survival. The Royal College of Anaesthetists has proposed the development of perioperative medicine (POM) services as an intervention aimed at improving postoperative outcome, by providing better coordinated care for high-risk patients. The Perioperative Medicine Service for High-risk Patients Implementation Pilot was developed to determine if a specialist POM service is able to reduce postoperative morbidity, failure to rescue, mortality and cost associated with hospital admission. The service involves individualised objective risk assessment, admission to a postoperative critical care unit and follow-up on the surgical ward by the POM team. This paper introduces the service and how it will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVALUATION: A mixed-methods evaluation is exploring the impact of the service. Clinical effectiveness of the service is being analysed using a 'before and after' comparison of the primary outcome (the PostOperative Morbidity Score). Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, validated surveys to explore quality of life (EQ-5D) and quality of recovery (Quality of Recovery-15 Score). The impact on costs is being analysed using 'before and after' data from the Patient-Level Information and Costing System and the National Schedule of Reference Costs. The perceptions and experiences of staff and patients with the service, and how it is being implemented, are being explored by a qualitative process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was classified as a service evaluation. Participant information sheets and consent forms have been developed for the interviews and approvals required for the use of the validated surveys were obtained. The findings of the evaluation are being used formatively, to make changes in the service throughout implementation. The findings will also be used to inform the potential roll-out of the service to other sites.

Improvement Science in Anaesthesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article offers an overview of the history and features of Improvement Science in general and some of its applications to Anaesthesia in particular. RECENT FINDINGS: Improvement Science is an evolving discipline aiming to generate learning from quality improvement interventions. An increasingly common approach to improving Anaesthesia services is to employ large-scale perioperative data measurement and feedback programmes. Improvement Science offers important insights on questions such as which indicators to collect data for; how to capture that data; how it can be presented in engaging visual formats; how it could/should be fed back to frontline staff and how they can be supported in their use of data to generate improvement. SUMMARY: Data measurement and feedback systems represent opportunities for anaesthetists to work with multidisciplinary colleagues to help improve services and outcomes for surgical patients. Improvement Science can help evaluate which approaches work, and in which contexts, and is therefore of value to healthcare commissioners, providers and patients.