Quality of Reporting on Guideline, Protocol, or Algorithm Implementation in Adult Trauma Centers: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol, and algorithm implementations in adult trauma settings according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0). BACKGROUND: At present we do not know if published reports of guideline implementations in trauma settings are of sufficient quality to facilitate replication by other centers wishing to implement the same or similar guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Articles were identified through electronic databases and hand searching relevant trauma journals. Studies meeting inclusion criteria focused on a guideline, protocol, or algorithm that targeted adult trauma patients ≥18 years and/or trauma patient care providers, and evaluated the effectiveness of guideline, protocol, or algorithm implementation in terms of change in clinical practice or patient outcomes. Each included study was assessed in duplicate for adherence to the 18-item SQUIRE 2.0 criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of studies meeting at least 80% (score ≥15) of SQUIRE 2.0. RESULTS: Of 7368 screened studies, 74 met inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine percent of studies scored ≥80% on SQUIRE 2.0. Criteria that were met most frequently were abstract (93%), problem description (93%), and specific aims (89%). The lowest scores appeared in the funding (28%), context (47%), and results (54%) criteria. No study indicated using SQUIRE 2.0 as a guideline to writing the report. CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunity exists to improve the utility of guideline implementation reports in adult trauma settings, particularly in the domains of study context and the implications of context for study outcomes.

Standardisation of perioperative urinary catheter use to reduce postsurgical urinary tract infection: an interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of healthcare-associated urinary tract infection (UTI) has been the focus of a national effort, yet appropriate indications for insertion and removal of urinary catheters (UC) among surgical patients remain poorly defined. METHODS: We developed and implemented a standardised approach to perioperative UC use to reduce postsurgical UTI including standard criteria for catheter insertion, training of staff to insert UC using sterile technique and standardised removal in the operating room and surgical unit using a nurse-initiated medical directive. We performed an interrupted time series analysis up to 2 years following intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who developed postsurgical UTI within 30 days as measured by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). Process measures included monthly UC insertions, removals in the operating room and UC days per patient-days on surgical units. RESULTS: At baseline, 22.5% of patients were catheterised for surgery, none were removed in the operating room and catheter-days per patient-days were 17.4% on surgical units. Following implementation of intervention, monthly catheter removal in the operating room immediately increased (range 12.2%-30.0%) while monthly UC insertion decreased more slowly before being sustained below baseline for 12 months (range 8.4%-15.6%). Monthly catheter-days per patient-days decreased to 8.3% immediately following intervention with a sustained shift below the mean in the final 8 months. Postsurgical UTI decreased from 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%) to 1.4% (95% CI 1.1-1.9; p=0.002) during the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised perioperative UC practices resulted in measurable improvement in postsurgical UTI. These appropriateness criteria for perioperative UC use among a broad range of surgical services could inform best practices for hospitals participating in ACS NSQIP.

Trauma patient discharge and care transition experiences: Identifying opportunities for quality improvement in trauma centres.

BACKGROUND: Challenges delivering quality care are especially salient during hospital discharge and care transitions. Severely injured patients discharged from a trauma centre will go either home, to rehabilitation or another acute care hospital with complex management needs. This purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of trauma patients and families treated in a regional academic trauma centre to better understand and improve their discharge and care transition experiences. METHODS: A qualitative study using inductive thematic analysis was conducted between March and October 2016. Telephone interviews were conducted with trauma patients and/or a family member after discharge from the trauma centre. Data collection and analysis were completed inductively and iteratively consistent with a qualitative approach. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews included 19 patients and 7 family members. Participants' experiences drew attention to discharge and transfer processes that either (1) Fostered quality discharge or (2) Impeded quality discharge. Fostering quality discharge was ward staff preparation efforts; establishing effective care continuity; and, adequate emotional support. Impeding discharge quality was perceived pressure to leave the hospital; imposed transfer decisions; and, sub-optimal communication and coordination around discharge. Patient-provider communication was viewed to be driven by system, rather than patient need. Inter-facility information gaps raised concern about receiving facilities' ability to care for injured patients. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of trauma patient discharge and transition experiences is undermined by system- and ward-level processes that compete, rather than align, in producing high quality patient-centred discharge. Local improvement solutions focused on modifiable factors within the trauma centre include patient-oriented discharge education and patient navigation; however, these approaches alone may be insufficient to enhance patient experiences. Trauma patients encounter complex barriers to quality discharge that likely require a comprehensive, multimodal intervention.

What is the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation in adult trauma centres? Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) is mandatory in trauma centres but there is no prescription for doing successful QI. Considerable variation in implementation strategies and inconsistent use of evidence-based protocols therefore exist across centres. The quality of reporting on these strategies may limit the transferability of successful initiatives across centres. This systematic review will assess the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation within a trauma centre in terms of the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for English language articles published after 2010 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL electronic databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The database search will be supplemented by searching trial registries and grey literature online. Included studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guideline implementation in terms of change in clinical practice or improvement in patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be a global score reporting the proportion of studies respecting at least 80% of the SQUIRE 2.0 criteria and will be obtained based on the 18-items identified in the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Secondary outcome will be the risk of bias assessed with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies- of Interventions tool for observational cohort studies and with the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses will be conducted in randomised controlled trials to estimate the effectiveness of guideline implementation if studies are not heterogeneous. If meta-analyses are conducted, we will combine studies according to the risk of bias (low, moderate or high/unclear) in subgroup analyses. All study titles, abstracts and full-text screening will be completed independently and in duplicate by the review team members. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will also be done independently and in duplicate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084273.