RESUMO
Background: Neonates exposed to painful procedures require pain assessment and reassessment using nonverbal scales. Nurses perform initial assessments routinely, but reassessment is variable. The goal was to increase pain reassessments in neonates with a previous score of 4 or higher within 60 minutes from 50% to 75% within 12 months. Methods: After identifying key drivers, we tested several interventions using the IHI's Model for Improvement. The outcome measure was the rate of reassessments within 1 hour after scoring ≥4 on the Neonatal Pain Agitation and Sedation Scale (N-PASS). Duration of time between scoring and intervention was documented. Interventions included electronic health record (EHR) changes, direct communication with bedside nurses through text messages and emails, in-person education, and a yearly competency module. The process measure was the number of messages/emails to staff. Sedation scores were the balancing measure. Results: Baseline compliance was 50% with significant variability. A centerline shift occurred after the first intervention. After the first four interventions in the following 3 months, a 29% total increase occurred. Overall time-lapse between reassessments decreased from 102 to 90 minutes. Overall sedation scores decreased from -2.5 during the baseline to -1.7 during the sustain period. The goal of 75% pain reassessments was achieved and sustained for two years. Conclusions: Automated tools such as the trigger report provided data that increased noncompliance visibility. Real-time and personalized reminders and education improved awareness and set the tone for culture change. Electronic health record reminders for reassessments and standardized annual education helped in sustaining change.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the growth of patient safety programs across the United States, errors and adverse events remain a source of patient harm. Many hospitals rely on retrospective voluntary reporting systems; however, there are opportunities to improve patient safety using novel tools like trigger programs. METHODS: Children's National Hospital developed a unique pediatric triggers program that offers customized, near real-time reports of potential safety events. Our team defined a measure to quantify clinical utility of triggers, termed "trigger signal," as the percentage of cases that represent true adverse or near-miss events (numerator) per total triggers activated (denominator). Our key driver diagram focused on unifying the program structure, increasing data analytics, promoting organizational awareness, and supporting multidisciplinary end user engagement. Using the model for improvement, we aimed to double overall trigger signal from 8% to 16% and sustain for 12 months. RESULTS: The trigger signal increased from 8% to 41% and sustained during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A balancing measure of time to implement a new trigger decreased. Key interventions to increase trigger signal were change in the program structure, increasing stakeholder engagement, and development of self-service reports for end users. CONCLUSIONS: Children's National Hospital's triggers program highlights successful evolution of an iterative, customized approach to increase clinical utility that hospitals can implement to impact real-time patient care. This triggers program requires an iterative, customized approach rather than a "1-size-fits-all," static paradigm to add a new dimension to current patient safety programs.
