Preventing pressure ulcers: the goal is zero.

BACKGROUND: One of the 12 interventions that the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) recommends for its 5 Million Lives Campaign is "Prevent Pressure Ulcers ... by reliably using science-based guidelines for their prevention." Pressure ulcers cause considerable harm to patients, hindering functional recovery, frequently causing pain, and often serving as vehicles for the development of serious infections. Although the goal for health care facilities to reduce pressure ulcers is admirable, the goal for pressure ulcer incidence should be zero. THE CASE FOR PREVENTION: Pressure ulcer prevention entails two major steps: identifying patients at risk and reliably implementing prevention strategies for all patients identified as at risk. Prevention strategies include six key elements (elements 3-6 address patients at risk): (1) conduct a pressure ulcer admission assessment for all patients, (2) reassess risk for all patients daily, (3) inspect skin daily, (4) manage moisture, (5) optimize nutrition and hydration, and (6) minimize pressure. Facilities may wish to form a multidisciplinary team to develop a pressure ulcer prevention program. CONCLUSION: The development of pressure ulcers is a painful, expensive, and unnecessary harm event that is all too prevalent in American hospitals. The prevention of pressure ulcers is a key intervention that is not new, not expensive, and has the potential to save thousands of patients from unnecessary harm.

RRTs and electronic code documentation: advancing in-hospital resuscitation practices.

Review new methods for preventing arrest and improving survival.

A multicenter collaborative approach to reducing pediatric codes outside the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: The Child Health Corporation of America formed a multicenter collaborative to decrease the rate of pediatric codes outside the ICU by 50%, double the days between these events, and improve the patient safety culture scores by 5 percentage points. METHODS: A multidisciplinary pediatric advisory panel developed a comprehensive change package of process improvement strategies and measures for tracking progress. Learning sessions, conference calls, and data submission facilitated collaborative group learning and implementation. Twenty Child Health Corporation of America hospitals participated in this 12-month improvement project. Each hospital identified at least 1 noncritical care target unit in which to implement selected elements of the change package. Strategies to improve prevention, detection, and correction of the deteriorating patient ranged from relatively simple, foundational changes to more complex, advanced changes. Each hospital selected a broad range of change package elements for implementation using rapid-cycle methodologies. The primary outcome measure was reduction in codes per 1000 patient days. Secondary outcomes were days between codes and change in patient safety culture scores. RESULTS: Code rate for the collaborative did not decrease significantly (3% decrease). Twelve hospitals reported additional data after the collaborative and saw significant improvement in code rates (24% decrease). Patient safety culture scores improved by 4.5% to 8.5%. CONCLUSIONS: A complex process, such as patient deterioration, requires sufficient time and effort to achieve improved outcomes and create a deeply embedded culture of patient safety. The collaborative model can accelerate improvements achieved by individual institutions.