Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:25:41.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of Implementation Components and Contextual Factors in a Two-State Healthcare Quality Initiative to Reduce Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

Kisha Jezel Ali ,
Donna O. Farley ,
Kathleen Speck ,
Mary Catanzaro ,
Karol G. Wicker  and
Sean M. Berenholtz
Kisha Jezel Ali
Affiliation:
Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Donna O. Farley
Affiliation:
Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Kathleen Speck
Affiliation:
Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Mary Catanzaro
Affiliation:
Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Karol G. Wicker
Affiliation:
Maryland Hospital Association, Elkridge, Maryland
Sean M. Berenholtz
Affiliation:
Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective.

To develop and field test an implementation assessment tool for assessing progress of hospital units in implementing improvements for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in a two-state collaborative, including data on actions implemented by participating teams and contextual factors that may influence their efforts. Using the data collected, learn how implementation actions can be improved and analyze effects of implementation progress on outcome measures.

Design.

We developed the tool as an interview protocol that included quantitative and qualitative items addressing actions on the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) and clinical interventions for use in guiding data collection via telephone interviews.

Setting.

We conducted interviews with leaders of improvement teams from units participating in the two-state VAP prevention initiative.

Methods.

We collected data from 43 hospital units as they implemented actions for the VAP initiative and performed descriptive analyzes of the data with comparisons across the 2 states.

Results.

Early in the VAP prevention initiative, most units had made only moderate progress overall in using many of the CUSP actions known to support their improvement processes. For contextual factors, a relatively small number of barriers were found to have important negative effects on implementation progress (in particular, barriers related to workload and time issues). We modified coaching provided to the unit teams to reinforce training in weak spots that the interviews identified.

Conclusion.

These assessments provided important new knowledge regarding the implementation science of quality improvement projects, including feedback during implementation, and give a better understanding of which factors most affect implementation.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 35 , Issue S3: Preventing Healthcare–Associated Infections: Results and Lessons Learned from AHRQ's HAI Program , October 2014 , pp. S116 - S123
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2014

References

1. Hughes, RG. Tools and strategies for quality improvement and patient safety. In: Hughes, RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2008.Google Scholar
2. Wiltsey, SS, Kimberly, J, Cook, N, Calloway, A, Castro, F, Charns, M. The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci 2012;7:17.Google Scholar
3. Marsteller, JA, Sexton, JB, Hsu, YJ, Hsaio, CJ, Pronovost, PJ, Thompson, D. A multicenter phased cluster-randomized controlled trial to reduce central line-associated blood-stream infections. Critical Care Med 2012;40(11):2933–2939.Google Scholar
4. Helfrich, CD, Damschroder, LJ, Hagedorn, HJ, et al. A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci 2010;5:82.Google Scholar
5. Schyve, PM. Leadership in Healthcare Organizations: A Guide to Joint Commission Leadership Standards. San Diego: Governance Institute, 2009.Google Scholar
6. Berenholtz, SM, Pham, JC, Thompson, DA, et al. An intervention to reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(4):305–314.Google Scholar
7. Pronovost, PJ, Berenholtz, SM, Needham, DM. Translating evidence into practice: a model for Jarge scale knowledge translation. BMJ 2008;337:963–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Using a comprehensive unit-based safety program to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/cusp/using-cusp-prevention/index.html. Updated 2013. Accessed August 16, 2013.Google Scholar
9. Sexton, JB, Berenholtz, SM, Goeschel, CA. Assessing and improving safety climate in a large cohort of intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2011;39(5):934–939.Google Scholar
10. Timmel, J, Kent, PS, Holzmueller, CG, Paine, L, Schulick, RD, Pronovost, PJ. Impact of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) on safety culture ina surgical inpatient unit. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010;36(6):252–260.Google Scholar
11. Weaver, SJ, Lubomksi, LH, Wilson, RF, Pfoh, ER, Martinez, KA, Dy, SM. Promoting a culture of safety as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:369–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Lubomski, LH, Marsteller, JA, Hsu, YJ, et al. The team checkup tool: evaluating QI team activities and giving feedback to senior leaders. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008;34(10):619–623, 561.Google Scholar
13. Farley, DO, Damberg, CL, Ridgely, MS, et al. Assessment of the AHRQ Patient Safety Initiative: Final Report, Evaluation Report IV. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2008.Google Scholar
14. Morganti, KG, Lovejoy, S, Haviland, AM, Haas, AC, Farley, DO. Measuring success for health care quality improvement interventions. Medical Care 2012;50(12):1086–1092.Google Scholar
15. Morganti, KG, Lovejoy, S, Beckjord, EB, Haviland, AM, Haas, AC, Farley, DO. A retrospective evaluation of the perfecting patient care university training program for health care organizations. Am J Med Qual 2014;29(1):30–38.Google Scholar
16. Aveling, E, Martin, GP, Armstrong, N, Banerjee, J, Dixon-Woods, M. Quality improvement through clinical communities: eight lessons for practice. J Health Organ Manage 2012;26:158–174.Google Scholar
17. Berenholtz, SM, Lubomski, LH, Weeks, K, et al. Eliminating central line-associated bloodstream infections: a national patient safety imperative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(1):56–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Johns Hopkins Web site. Johns Hopkins awarded $7.3 million to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. http://www .hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkms _awarded_73_million_to_prevent_ventilator_associated_pneumonia. Updated September 24, 2013. Accessed January 30, 2014.Google Scholar