Evaluation of lay health workers on quality of care in the inpatient setting.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of a lay health worker support role in the inpatient setting. BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are facing critical nursing and nurse assistant staffing shortages. These disciplines can be challenging to recruit and retain, leading healthcare leaders to identify innovative staffing models. Whereas lay health workers have been used in the community and low-income setting, there is scant evidence of their use in the inpatient setting. We implemented a lay health worker role, called Patient Attendant Service Aides (PASAs), on two medical/surgical units at a community hospital. METHODS: A pre/post-implementation design was used for this study. An online survey was provided to nurses, nursing assistants, and PASAs on the two medical/surgical units to assess their satisfaction and perceptions of the role. Nursing quality metrics, patient satisfaction, and nursing and nursing assistant turnover were evaluated before and after implementing the role. RESULTS: The online survey showed that nurses and nursing assistants felt that PASAs helped offload their workload, allowing them to focus on nursing-related tasks. PASAs felt supported by the team and believed they were making a meaningful contribution to the unit. There were slight improvements in patient satisfaction, although not significant. There was a significant improvement in nursing turnover on Unit A, from 71.1% to 21.6% (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to evaluate the use of lay health workers in the inpatient setting; we found this role to be a feasible way to offload tasks from clinical staff. This role may serve as a pathway for workforce development, as several PASAs are now enrolled in nursing assistant training. Nurse managers may consider using lay health workers in the inpatient setting as they face severe clinical staff shortages.

Reduction in patient refusal of CHG bathing.

BACKGROUND: Daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing is a well-supported intervention to reduce patient's risk of central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI); however, compliance with this practice is suboptimal. One major barrier is patient refusals of CHG bathing. The purpose of this project was to implement tailored interventions to mitigate this barrier. The specific aims were to reduce patient refusals, increase compliance with CHG bathing, and evaluate CLABSI rates and nursing staff's knowledge of CHG bathing. METHODS: Iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were implemented over the course of 6 months. Run charts were used to identify signals of improvement. Interventions included printed educational flyers for staff and patients, educational sessions, an electronic learning module, and a "badge buddy." RESULTS: We saw a reduction in the median percentage of patient refusals documented, from 23% to 8% after the PDSA cycles. Documentation compliance with CHG bathing increased only slightly from 46% to 47%. CLABSI rates decreased 6% from 0.69 to 0.65. DISCUSSION: Using interventions tailored to the clinical setting can impact patient outcomes. Other health care systems should consider implementing PDSA cycles to improve evidence-based practices. CONCLUSIONS: Using PDSA cycles can result in a reduction in patient refusal documentation, and may slightly improve CHG bathing compliance and CLABSI rates.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of an eGlycemic Management System in a Community Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: Glucommander is an eGlycemic management system (eGMS) for intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SQ) insulin therapy in hospitalized patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Glucommander compared to previously utilized nomograms in the community hospital setting. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, single-center cohort study comparing measures of efficacy and safety of IV and SQ insulin therapy via eGMS versus nomogram-driven IV insulin therapy followed by provider-ordered basal-bolus SQ insulin. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent of blood glucose (BG) readings per patient in target glycemic range. Safety objectives were percent of hyperglycemic events, hypoglycemic events, and severe hypoglycemic events after achieving target blood glucose range, and mean number of each event per patient. RESULTS: The percentage of BG readings in range was significantly higher for eGMS patients (n = 110) than comparison cohort patients (n = 108, 84.6% vs 76.8%, P < .001). Hyperglycemic events occurred for significantly fewer patients in the eGMS cohort relative to the comparison cohort (81.8% vs 92.6%, P = .03). Overall, there was no significant difference between cohorts in rate of hypoglycemic events, but hypoglycemic events while on IV insulin occurred in a significantly higher percentage of eGMS cohort patients than comparison cohort patients (30.9% vs 15.7%, P < .01). There were no significant differences in incidence of severe hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that Glucommander maintained a higher percentage of BG readings in target BG range per patient compared to previously utilized nomograms. This result was driven by an improvement in hyperglycemia, but not hypoglycemia.