Using the Knowledge to Action Framework to Describe a Nationwide Implementation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Cameroon.

BACKGROUND: Surgical safety has advanced rapidly with evidence of improved patient outcomes through structural and process interventions. However, knowledge of how to apply these interventions successfully and sustainably at scale is often lacking. The 2019 Global Ministerial Patient Safety Summit called for a focus on implementation strategies to maintain momentum in patient safety improvements, especially in low- and middle-income settings. This study uses an implementation framework, knowledge to action, to examine a model of nationwide World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist implementation in Cameroon. Cameroon is a lower-middle-income country, and based on data from high- and low-income countries, we hypothesized that more than 50% of participants would be using the checklist (penetration) in the correct manner (fidelity) 4 months postintervention. METHODS: A collaboration of 3 stakeholders (Ministry of Health, academic institution, and nongovernmental organization) used a prospective observational design. Based on knowledge to action, there were 3 phases to the study implementation: problem identification (lack of routine checklist use in Cameroonian hospitals), multifaceted implementation strategy (3-day multidisciplinary training course, coaching, facilitated leadership engagement, and support networks), and outcome evaluation 4 months postintervention. Validated implementation outcomes were assessed. Primary outcomes were checklist use (penetration) and fidelity; secondary outcomes were perioperative teams' reactions, learning and behavior change; and tertiary outcomes were perioperative teams' acceptability of the checklist. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-one operating room staff members from 25 hospitals received training. Median time to evaluation was 4.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.5-5.5, range 3-7); checklist use (penetration) increased from 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-25) to 56% (95% CI, 49-63); fidelity for adherence to 6 basic safety processes was high: verification of patient identification was 91% (95% CI, 87-95); risk assessment for difficult intubation was 79% (95% CI, 73-85): risk assessment for blood loss was 88% (95% CI, 83-93) use of pulse oximetry was 93% (95% CI, 90-97); antibiotic administration was 95% (95% CI, 91-98); surgical counting was 89% (95% CI, 84-93); and fidelity for nontechnical skills measured by the WHO Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale was 4.5 of 7 (95% CI, 3.5-5.4). Median scores for all secondary outcomes were 10/10, and 7 acceptability measures were consistently more than 70%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a multifaceted implementation strategy is associated with successful checklist implementation in a lower-middle-income country such as Cameroon, and suggests that a theoretical framework can be used to practically drive nationwide scale-up of checklist use.

Why are hospitalisations too long? A simple checklist for identifying the main social barriers to hospital discharge from a nephrology ward.

The present increase in life span has been accompanied by an even higher increase in the burden of comorbidity. The challenges to healthcare systems are enormous and performance measures have been introduced to make the provision of healthcare more cost-efficient. Performance of hospitalisation is basically defined by the relationship between hospital stay, use of hospital resources, and main diagnosis/diagnoses and complication(s), adjusted for case mix. These factors, combined in different indexes, are compared with the performance of similar hospitals in the same and other countries. The reasons why an approach like this is being employed are clear.Cutting costs cannot be the only criteria, in particular in elderly, high-comorbidity patients: in this population, although social issues are important determinants of hospital stay, they are rarely taken into account or quantified in evaluations. Quantifying the impact of the "social barriers" to care can serve as a marker of the overall quality of treatment a network provides, and point to specific out-of-hospital needs, necessary to improve in-hospital performance. We therefore propose a simple, empiric medico-social checklist that can be used in nephrology wards to assess the presence of social barriers to hospital discharge and quantify their weight.Using the checklist should allow: identifying patients with social frailty that could complicate hospitalisation and/or discharge; evaluating the social needs of patient and entourage at the beginning of hospitalisation, adopting timely procedures, within the partnership with out-of-hospital teams; facilitating prioritization of interventions by social workers.The following ten items were empirically identified: reason for hospitalisation; hospitalisation in relation to the caregiver's problems; recurrent unplanned hospitalisations or early re-hospitalisation; social/family isolation; presence of a dependent relative in the patient's household; lack of housing or unsuitable housing/accommodation; loss of autonomy; lack of economic resources; lack of a safe environment; evidence of physical or psychological abuse.The simple tool here described needs validation; the present proposal is aimed at raising attention on the importance of non-medical issues in medical organisation in our specialty, and is open to discussion, to allow its refinement.

Use of the WHO surgical safety checklist in low and middle income countries: A review of the literature.

A wealth of research now exists surrounding use of the WHO surgical safety checklist. This paper reviews the literature regarding checklist use in developing countries. Results identify a lack of available literature specific to developing countries despite this potentially being where the greatest impact could be observed. Unique challenges of checklist use are discussed and opportunities for future research focusing on use of the checklist in developing countries suggested.

The economic evaluation of an antibiotic checklist as antimicrobial stewardship intervention.

OBJECTIVES: An antibiotic checklist was introduced in nine Dutch hospitals to improve appropriate antibiotic use. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of checklist use. METHODS: We compared 853 patients treated with an antibiotic before checklist introduction (usual care group) with 1207 patients treated after introduction (checklist group). We calculated the change of costs between these groups per unit effect [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)]: per extra patient receiving appropriate treatment; and per day reduction in length of hospital stay (LOS). We also calculated the benefit-to-cost ratio per day reduction in LOS. Finally, we estimated the number of checklists after which the expected benefits would compensate for costs in one hospital. RESULTS: The cost of checklist use per patient was €10.10. Of the usual care patients, 48.8% received appropriate antibiotic treatment compared with 67.5% of the checklist patients (+18.7%). The ICER was €54.01 (1010/18.7) per extra patient with appropriate treatment. In a model calculation the expected effect of appropriate antibiotic use was a reduction in LOS of 1.05 days, which was extrapolated to a reduction of 19.64 hospital days per 100 patients. The ICER was €51.43 (1010/19.64) per day reduction in LOS. The estimated benefit of a 1 day reduction was €611. The benefit-to-cost ratio was 11.9 (611/51.43) per day reduction in LOS, indicating a cost saving of €12 for every euro spent on checklist use. The benefits would compensate for costs after use of 11 checklists. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts for further implementation of the antibiotic checklist can be justified by potential economic benefits.

Is Real-World Evidence Used in P&T Monographs and Therapeutic Class Reviews?

BACKGROUND: Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies. METHODS: A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist. RESULTS: Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3%, 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1%, 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8% (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [10], long-term safety [8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality. CONCLUSIONS: RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. DISCLOSURES: This project was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Hurwitz, Brown, Peters, and Malone have nothing to disclose. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council Part of this study was presented as a poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone and Graff, along with Hurwitz and Brown. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Malone, Hurwitz, and Graff, with assistance from Brown and Peters. The manuscript was written primarily by Hurwitz and Malone, along with Graff, Brown, and Peters, and revised by Malone, Brown, Peters, Hurwitz, and Graff.

Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions for Bloodstream Infections Related to Central Catheters: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Although quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), their economic value is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to prevent CLABSI and/or CRBSI in acute care hospitals. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, Worldcat, prior systematic reviews (January 2004 to July 2016), and IDWeek conference abstracts (2013-2016), was conducted from 2013 to 2016. We included English-language studies of any design that evaluated organizational or structural changes to prevent CLABSI or CRBSI, and reported program and infection-related costs. Dual reviewers assessed study design, effectiveness, costs, and study quality. For each eligible study, we performed a cost-consequences analysis from the hospital perspective, estimating the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incremental net savings. Unadjusted weighted regression analyses tested predictors of these measures, weighted by catheter-days per study per year. FINDINGS: Of 505 articles, 15 unique studies were eligible, together representing data from 113 hospitals. Thirteen studies compared Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-recommended practices with usual care, including 7 testing insertion checklists. Eleven studies were based on uncontrolled before-after designs, 1 on a randomized controlled trial, 1 on a time-series analysis, and 2 on modeled estimates. Overall, the weighted mean IRR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.35-0.51) and incremental net savings were $1.85 million (95% CI, $1.30 million to $2.40 million) per hospital over 3 years (2015 US dollars). Each $100 000-increase in program cost was associated with $315 000 greater savings (95% CI, $166 000-$464 000; P < .001). Infections and net costs declined when hospitals already used checklists or had baseline infection rates of 1.7 to 3.7 per 1000 catheter-days. Study quality was not associated with effectiveness or costs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interventions related to central venous catheters were, on average, associated with 57% fewer bloodstream infections and substantial savings to hospitals. Larger initial investments may be associated with greater savings. Although checklists are now widely used and infections have started to decline, additional improvements and savings can occur at hospitals that have not yet attained very low infection rates.

Electronically Mediated Time-out Initiative to Reduce the Incidence of Wrong Surgery: An Interventional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: "Wrong surgery" is defined as wrong site, wrong operation, or wrong patient, with estimated incidence up to 1 per 5,000 cases. Responding to national attention on wrong surgery, our objective was to create a care redesign intervention to minimize the rate of wrong surgery. METHODS: The authors created an electronic system using existing intraoperative electronic documentation to present a time-out checklist on large in-room displays. Time-out was dynamically interposed as a forced-function documentation step between "patient-in-operating room" and "incision." Time to complete documentation was obtained from audit logs. The authors measured the postimplementation wrong surgery rate and used Bayesian methods to compare the pre- and postimplementation rates at our institution. Previous probabilities were selected using wrong surgery rate estimates from the observed performance reported in the literature to generate previous probabilities (4.24 wrong surgeries per 100,000 cases). RESULTS: No documentation times exceeded 5 min; 97% of documentation tasks were completed within 2 min. The authors performed 243,939 operations over 5 yr using the system, with zero wrong surgeries, compared with 253,838 operations over 6 yr with two wrong surgeries before implementation. Bayesian analysis suggests an 84% probability that the postimplementation wrong rate is lower than baseline. However, given the rarity of wrong surgery in our sample, there is substantial uncertainty. The total system-development cost was $34,000, roughly half the published cost of one weighted median settlement for wrong surgery. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a forced-completion electronically mediated time-out process before incision is feasible, but it is unclear whether true performance improvements occur.

Multifaceted intervention including education, rounding checklist implementation, cost feedback, and financial incentives reduces inpatient laboratory costs.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate laboratory testing is a contributor to waste in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multifaceted laboratory reduction intervention on laboratory costs. DESIGN: A retrospective, controlled, interrupted time series (ITS) study. SETTING: University of Utah Health Care, a 500-bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. POPULATION: All patients 18 years or older admitted to the hospital to a service other than obstetrics, rehabilitation, or psychiatry. INTERVENTION: Multifaceted quality-improvement initiative in a hospitalist service including education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentive. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes of lab cost per day and per visit. Secondary outcomes of number of basic metabolic panel (BMP), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), complete blood count (CBC), and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio tests per day; length of stay (LOS); and 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 6310 hospitalist patient visits (intervention group) were compared to 25,586 nonhospitalist visits (control group). Among the intervention group, the unadjusted mean cost per day was reduced from $138 before the intervention to $123 after the intervention (P < 0.001), and the unadjusted mean cost per visit decreased from $618 to $558 (P = 0.005). The ITS analysis showed significant reductions in cost per day, cost per visit, and the number of BMP, CMP, and CBC tests per day (P = 0.034, 0.02, <0.001, 0.004, and <0.001). LOS was unchanged and 30-day readmissions decreased in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted approach to laboratory reduction demonstrated a significant reduction in laboratory cost per day and per visit, as well as common tests per day at a major academic medical center. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:348-354. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Reduction of red blood cell transfusions by implementation of a concise pretransfusion checklist.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the effect of the implementation of a concise pretransfusion checklist as a means for restrictive blood transfusion strategy. OBJECTIVES: To achieve an optimal use of red blood cells and to prevent overdosing of transfusion by implementation of a decision support algorithm. METHODS: To ensure adequate use of red blood cells, physicians were obliged to complete the checklist with pretransfusion patient information before transfusion was approved. Laboratory employees checked the information and provided approval or refused to process the request. The red blood cell transfusion events, length of stay and mortality were analysed during a pre- and post-implementation period of 1 year. RESULTS: Transfusion requests decreased by 17·0%. The proportion of 1-unit and 2-unit transfusions decreased by 5·6% and 29·2%, respectively, corresponding with a total red blood cell units reduction of 22·6% and a yearly direct local cost reduction of 190·000 €. The median length of stay of transfused patients on wards decreased by 1·07 days (P < 0·05). Average pre- and post-transfusion haemoglobin levels before and after implementation of the checklist decreased by 0·32-0·35 g L(-1) (P < 0·05) for one unit red blood cell transfusions and 0·72-0·87 g L(-1) (P < 0·05) for two units of red blood cell transfusions. CONCLUSION: Decision support for transfusion necessity, in the form of a concise checklist as part of the transfusion request, is an example of a successful restricted blood transfusion strategy. The checklist can be applied in other hospitals as well.

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement.

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite the publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user-friendly 23-item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration.

BACKGROUND: The process of "mapping" is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement. METHODS: In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. RESULTS: From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

Assessing the Economics of Dengue: Results from a Systematic Review of the Literature and Expert Survey.

BACKGROUND: The economics of dengue is complex and multifaceted. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review of the literature to provide a critical overview of the issues related to dengue economics research and to form a background with which to address the question of cost. METHODS: Three literature databases were searched [PubMed, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS)], covering a period from 1980 to 2013, to identify papers meeting preset inclusion criteria. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality on the basis of a quality checklist developed for this purpose. An expert survey was designed to identify priority areas in dengue economics research and to identify gaps between the methodology and actual practice. Survey responses were combined with the literature review findings to determine stakeholder priorities in dengue economics research. RESULTS: The review identified over 700 papers. Forty-two of these papers met the selection criteria. The studies that were reviewed presented results from 32 dengue-endemic countries, underscoring the importance of dengue as a global public health problem. Cost analyses were the most common, with 21 papers, followed by nine cost-effectiveness analyses and seven cost-of-illness studies, indicating a relatively strong mix of methodologies. Dengue annual overall costs (in 2010 values) ranged from US$13.5 million (in Nicaragua) to $56 million (in Malaysia), showing cost variations across countries. Little consistency exists in the way costs were estimated and dengue interventions evaluated, making generalizations around costs difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that dengue costs are substantial because of the cost of hospital care and lost earnings. Further research in this area will broaden our understanding of the true economic impact of dengue.

A cluster randomized trial for the implementation of an antibiotic checklist based on validated quality indicators: the AB-checklist.

BACKGROUND: Recently we developed and validated generic quality indicators that define 'appropriate antibiotic use' in hospitalized adults treated for a (suspected) bacterial infection. Previous studies have shown that with appropriate antibiotic use a reduction of 13% of length of hospital stay can be achieved. Our main objective in this project is to provide hospitals with an antibiotic checklist based on these quality indicators, and to evaluate the introduction of this checklist in terms of (cost-) effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: The checklist applies to hospitalized adults with a suspected bacterial infection for whom antibiotic therapy is initiated, at first via the intravenous route. A stepped wedge study design will be used, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of the checklist in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. At least 810 patients will be included in both the control and the intervention group. The primary endpoint is length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints are appropriate antibiotic use measured by the quality indicators, admission to and duration of intensive care unit stay, readmission within 30 days, mortality, total antibiotic use, and costs associated with implementation and hospital stay. Differences in numerical endpoints between the two periods will be evaluated with mixed linear models; for dichotomous outcomes generalized estimating equation models will be used. A process evaluation will be performed to evaluate the professionals' compliance with use of the checklist. The key question for the economic evaluation is whether the benefits of the checklist, which include reduced antibiotic use, reduced length of stay and associated costs, justify the costs associated with implementation activities as well as daily use of the checklist. DISCUSSION: If (cost-) effective, the AB-checklist will provide physicians with a tool to support appropriate antibiotic use in adult hospitalized patients who start with intravenous antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry: NTR4872.

Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research-the SIMULATE checklist: report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force.

Health care delivery systems are inherently complex, consisting of multiple tiers of interdependent subsystems and processes that are adaptive to changes in the environment and behave in a nonlinear fashion. Traditional health technology assessment and modeling methods often neglect the wider health system impacts that can be critical for achieving desired health system goals and are often of limited usefulness when applied to complex health systems. Researchers and health care decision makers can either underestimate or fail to consider the interactions among the people, processes, technology, and facility designs. Health care delivery system interventions need to incorporate the dynamics and complexities of the health care system context in which the intervention is delivered. This report provides an overview of common dynamic simulation modeling methods and examples of health care system interventions in which such methods could be useful. Three dynamic simulation modeling methods are presented to evaluate system interventions for health care delivery: system dynamics, discrete event simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast to conventional evaluations, a dynamic systems approach incorporates the complexity of the system and anticipates the upstream and downstream consequences of changes in complex health care delivery systems. This report assists researchers and decision makers in deciding whether these simulation methods are appropriate to address specific health system problems through an eight-point checklist referred to as the SIMULATE (System, Interactions, Multilevel, Understanding, Loops, Agents, Time, Emergence) tool. It is a primer for researchers and decision makers working in health care delivery and implementation sciences who face complex challenges in delivering effective and efficient care that can be addressed with system interventions. On reviewing this report, the readers should be able to identify whether these simulation modeling methods are appropriate to answer the problem they are addressing and to recognize the differences of these methods from other modeling approaches used typically in health technology assessment applications.

A case series using a care management checklist to decrease emergency department visits and hospitalizations in children with epilepsy.

Each year, 1 million people are seen in an emergency department for seizures or epilepsy. We implemented a care management checklist for patients with frequent visits. A database was searched for patients with the highest number of emergency department visits and/or unplanned hospitalizations in 2011. Four patients were selected. A care management checklist was implemented in 2012. Compliance with the office visits, number of emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations, and the associated costs were tracked following implementation of the checklist for 2011 and 2012. These 4 epilepsy patients accounted for 46 visits in the year 2011 with associated health care costs of $380,209. Following a year using a care management checklist, the same patients accounted for 11 visits with a cost reduction of $188,130. Using a care management checklist was useful in these 4 epilepsy patients to decrease emergency department visits and/or unplanned hospitalizations. A limitation of this study is its small numbers.

An oral health intervention for people with serious mental illness (Three Shires Early Intervention Dental Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral health is an important part of general physical health and is essential for self-esteem, self-confidence and overall quality of life. There is a well-established link between mental illness and poor oral health. Oral health problems are not generally well recognized by mental health professionals and many patients experience barriers to treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is the protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial that has been designed to fit within standard care. Dental awareness training for care co-ordinators plus a dental checklist for service users in addition to standard care will be compared with standard care alone for people with mental illness. The checklist consists of questions about service users' current oral health routine and condition. Ten Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) teams in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire will be cluster randomised (five to intervention and five to standard care) in blocks accounting for location and size of caseload. The oral health of the service users will be monitored for one year after randomisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63382258.

Six things every plastic surgeon needs to know about teamwork training and checklists.

More than 20 years of teamwork, research, and experience in high-risk industries such as aviation, nuclear power, and military operations have clearly demonstrated that teamwork training and checklist usage can overcome the primary causes of adverse events. There is a growing body of evidence that checklist programs have the same error-reducing effect in operating rooms (OR) as in other industries. The benefits include documented improvements in patient safety and quality care; a better office, surgery center, or hospital in which to practice medicine; reduced exposure to malpractice risk; and increased efficiency in the OR.

Antibiotic surveillance on a paediatric intensive care unit: easy attainable strategy at low costs and resources.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic surveillance is mandatory to optimise antibiotic therapy. Our objectives were to evaluate antibiotic use in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and to implement a simple achievable intervention aimed at improving antibiotic therapy. METHOD: Prospective, 3 months surveillance of antibiotic use on PICU (phase I) and evaluation according to the CDC 12-step campaign with development of an attainable intervention. 3 months surveillance (phase II) after implementation of intervention with comparison of antibiotic use. RESULTS: Appropriate antibiotic use for culture-negative infection-like symptoms and targeted therapy for proven infections were the main areas for potential improvement. The intervention was a mandatory checklist requiring indication and recording likelihood of infection at start of antibiotic therapy and a review of the continuing need for therapy at 48 h and 5 days, reasons for continuation and possible target pathogen. The percentage of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy courses for culture-negative infection-like symptoms increased from 18% (10/53) to 74% (42/57; p<0.0001), duration of therapy <3 days increased from 18% (10/53) to 35% (20/57; p=0.05) and correct targeting of pathogen increased from 58% (7/12) to 83% (20/24; p=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic surveillance using the CDC 12-step campaign can help to evaluate institutional antibiotic therapy. Development of an attainable intervention using a checklist can show improved antibiotic use with minimal expense.