Christine G. Holzmueller

Frailty as a Predictor of Surgical Outcomes in Older Patients

BACKGROUND Preoperative risk assessment is important yet inexact in older patients because physiologic reserves are difficult to measure. Frailty is thought to estimate physiologic reserves, although its use has not been evaluated in surgical patients. We designed a study to determine if frailty predicts surgical complications and enhances current perioperative risk models. STUDY DESIGN We prospectively measured frailty in 594 patients (age 65 years or older) presenting to a university hospital for elective surgery between July 2005 and July 2006. Frailty was classified using a validated scale (0 to 5) that included weakness, weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, and slowed walking speed. Patients scoring 4 to 5 were classified as frail, 2 to 3 were intermediately frail, and 0 to 1 were nonfrail. Main outcomes measures were 30-day surgical complications, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Multiple logistic regression (complications and discharge) and negative binomial regression (length of stay) were done to analyze frailty and postoperative outcomes associations. RESULTS Preoperative frailty was associated with an increased risk for postoperative complications (intermediately frail: odds ratio [OR] 2.06; 95% CI 1.18-3.60; frail: OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.12-5.77), length of stay (intermediately frail: incidence rate ratio 1.49; 95% CI 1.24-1.80; frail: incidence rate ratio 1.69; 95% CI 1.28-2.23), and discharge to a skilled or assisted-living facility after previously living at home (intermediately frail: OR 3.16; 95% CI 1.0-9.99; frail: OR 20.48; 95% CI 5.54-75.68). Frailty improved predictive power (p < 0.01) of each risk index (ie, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Lee, and Eagle scores). CONCLUSIONS Frailty independently predicts postoperative complications, length of stay, and discharge to a skilled or assisted-living facility in older surgical patients and enhances conventional risk models. Assessing frailty using a standardized definition can help patients and physicians make more informed decisions.

Evaluation of the culture of safety: survey of clinicians and managers in an academic medical center

Background: Despite the emphasis on patient safety in health care, few organizations have evaluated the extent to which safety is a strategic priority or their culture supports patient safety. In response to the Institute of Medicine’s report and to an organizational commitment to patient safety, we conducted a systematic assessment of safety at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and, from this, developed a strategic plan to improve safety. The specific aims of this study were to evaluate the extent to which the culture supports patient safety at JHH and the extent to which safety is a strategic priority. Methods: During July and August 2001 we implemented two surveys in disparate populations to assess patient safety. The Safety Climate Scale (SCS) was administered to a sample of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other ICU staff. SCS assesses perceptions of a strong and proactive organizational commitment to patient safety. The second survey instrument, called Strategies for Leadership (SLS), evaluated the extent to which safety was a strategic priority for the organization. This survey was administered to clinical and administrative leaders. Results: We received 395 completed SCS surveys from 82% of the departments and 86% of the nursing units. Staff perceived that supervisors had a greater commitment to safety than senior leaders. Nurses had higher scores than physicians for perceptions of safety. Twenty three completed SLS surveys were received from 77% of the JHH Patient Safety Committee members and 50% of the JHH Management Committee members. Management Committee responses were more positive than Patient Safety Committee, indicating that management perceived safety efforts to be further developed. Strategic planning received the lowest scores from both committees. Conclusions: We believe this is one of the first large scale efforts to measure institutional culture of safety and then design improvements in health care. The survey results suggest that strategic planning of patient safety needs enhancement. Several efforts to improve our culture of safety were initiated based on these results, which should lead to measurable improvements in patient safety.

Improving patient safety in intensive care units in Michigan.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to describe the design and lessons learned from implementing a large-scale patient safety collaborative and the impact of an intervention on teamwork climate in intensive care units (ICUs) across the state of Michigan. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study used a collaborative model for improvement involving researchers from the Johns Hopkins University and Michigan Health and Hospital Association. A quality improvement team in each ICU collected and submitted baseline data and implemented quality improvement interventions. Primary outcome measures were improvements in safety culture scores using the Teamwork Climate Scale of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ); 99 ICUs provided baseline SAQ data. Baseline performance for adherence to evidence-based interventions for ventilated patients is also reported. The intervention to improve safety culture was the comprehensive unit-based safety program. The rwg statistic measures the extent to which there is a group consensus. RESULTS Overall response rate for the baseline SAQ was 72%. Statistical tests confirmed that teamwork climate scores provided a valid measure of teamwork climate consensus among caregivers in an ICU, mean rwg was 0.840 (SD = 0.07). Teamwork climate varied significantly among ICUs at baseline (F98, 5325 = 5.90, P < .001), ranging from 16% to 92% of caregivers in an ICU reporting good teamwork climate. A subset of 72 ICUs repeated the culture assessment in 2005, and a 2-tailed paired samples t test showed that teamwork climate improved from 2004 to 2005, t(71) = -2.921, P < .005. Adherence to using evidence-based interventions ranged from a mean of 25% for maintaining glucose at 110 mg/dL or less to 89% for stress ulcer prophylaxis. CONCLUSION This study describes the first statewide effort to improve patient safety in ICUs. The use of the comprehensive unit-based safety program was associated with significant improvements in safety culture. This collaborative may serve as a model to implement feasible and methodologically rigorous methods to improve and sustain patient safety on a larger scale.

Implementing and Validating a Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program

Background: The IOM identified patient safety as a significant problem. This paper describes the implementation and validation of a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) in intensive care settings. Methods: An 8-step safety program was implemented in the Weinberg ICU, with a second control (SICU) subsequently receiving the intervention. Unit improvement teams (physician, nurse, administrator) were identified to champion efforts between staff and Safety Committee. CUSP steps: (1) culture of safety assessment; (2) sciences of safety education; (3) staff identification of safety concerns; (4) senior executives adopt a unit; (5) improvements implemented from safety concerns; (6) efforts documented/analyzed; (7) results shared; and (8) culture reassessment. Results: Safety culture improved post versus pre-intervention (35% to 52% in WICU and 35% to 67% in SICU). Senior executive adoption led to patient transport teams and pharmacy presence in ICUs. Interventions from safety assessment included: medication reconciliation, short-term goals sheet and relabeling epidural catheters. One-year post-CUSP implementation, length of stay (LOS) decreased from 2 to 1 day in WICU and 3 to 2 days in SICU (P < 0.05 WICU and SICU). Medication errors in transfer orders were nearly eliminated, and nursing turnover decreased from 9% to 2% in WICU and 8% to 2% in SICU (neither statistically significant). Conclusions: CUSP successfully implemented in 2 ICUs. CUSP can improve patient safety and reduce medication errors, LOS, and potentially nursing turnover.

Teamwork in the operating room: frontline perspectives among hospitals and operating room personnel.

Background:The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is proposing that hospitals measure culture beginning in 2007. However, a reliable and widely used measurement tool for the operating room (OR) setting does not currently exist. Methods:OR personnel in 60 US hospitals were surveyed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. The teamwork climate domain of the survey uses six items about difficulty speaking up, conflict resolution, physician–nurse collaboration, feeling supported by others, asking questions, and heeding nurse input. To justify grouping individual-level responses to a single score at each hospital OR level, the authors used a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, intraclass correlations, within-group interrater reliability, and Cronbach’s &agr;. To detect differences at the hospital OR level and by caregiver type, the authors used multivariate analysis of variance (items) and analysis of variance (scale). Results:The response rate was 77.1%. There was robust evidence for grouping individual-level respondents to the hospital OR level using the diverse set of statistical tests, e.g., Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, root mean squared error of approximation = 0.05, and acceptable intraclasss correlations, within-group interrater reliability values, and Cronbach’s &agr; = 0.79. Teamwork climate differed significantly by hospital (F59, 1,911 = 4.06, P < 0.001) and OR caregiver type (F4, 1,911 = 9.96, P < 0.001). Conclusions:Rigorous assessment of teamwork climate is possible using this psychometrically sound teamwork climate scale. This tool and initial benchmarks allow others to compare their teamwork climate to national means, in an effort to focus more on what excellent surgical teams do well.

Variation in caregiver perceptions of teamwork climate in labor and delivery units

Objective:To test the psychometric soundness of a teamwork climate survey in labor and delivery, examine differences in perceptions of teamwork, and provide benchmarking data.Design:Cross-sectional survey of labor and delivery caregivers in 44 hospitals in diverse regions of the US, using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire teamwork climate scale.Results:The response rate was 72% (3382 of 4700). The teamwork climate scale had good internal reliability (overall α=0.78). Teamwork climate scale factor structure was confirmed using multilevel confirmatory factor analyses (CFI=0.95, TLI=0.92, RMSEA=0.12, SRMRwithin=0.04, SRMRbetween=0.09). Aggregation of individual-level responses to the L&D unit-level was supported by ICC (1)=0.06 (P<0.001), ICC (2)=0.83 and mean r wg(j)=0.83. ANOVA demonstrated differences between caregivers F (7, 3013)=10.30, P<0.001 and labor and delivery units, F (43, 1022)=3.49, P<0.001. Convergent validity of the scale scores was measured by correlations with external teamwork-related items: collaborative decision making (r=0.780, P<0.001), use of briefings (r=0.496, P<0.001) and perceived adequacy of staffing levels (r=0.593, P<0.001).Conclusion:We demonstrate a psychometrically sound teamwork climate scale, correlate it to external teamwork-related items, and provide labor and delivery teamwork benchmarks. Further teamwork climate research should explore the links to clinical and operational outcomes.

Assessing and improving safety climate in a large cohort of intensive care units

Objectives:To evaluate the impact of a comprehensive unit-based safety program on safety climate in a large cohort of intensive care units participating in the Keystone intensive care unit project. Design/Setting:A prospective cohort collaborative study to improve quality of care and safety culture by implementing and evaluating patient safety interventions in intensive care units predominantly in the state of Michigan. Interventions:The comprehensive unit-based safety program was the first intervention implemented by every intensive care unit participating in the collaborative. It is specifically designed to improve the various elements of a units safety culture, such as teamwork and safety climate. We administered the validated Safety Attitudes Questionnaire at baseline (2004) and after 2 yrs of exposure to the safety program (2006) to assess improvement. The safety climate domain on the survey includes seven items. Measurements and Main Results:Post-safety climate scores for intensive care units. To interpret results, a score of <60% was in the “needs improvement” zone and a ≥10-point discrepancy in pre-post scores was needed to describe a difference. Hospital bed size, teaching status, and faith-based status were included in our analyses. Seventy-one intensive care units returned surveys in 2004 and 2006 with 71% and 73% response rates, respectively. Overall mean safety climate scores significantly improved from 42.5% (2004) to 52.2% (2006), t = −6.21, p < .001, with scores higher in faith-based intensive care units and smaller-bed-size hospitals. In 2004, 87% of intensive care units were in the “needs improvement” range and in 2006, 47% were in this range or did not score ≥10 points or higher. Five of seven safety climate items significantly improved from 2004 to 2006. Conclusions:A patient safety program designed to improve teamwork and culture was associated with significant improvements in overall mean safety climate scores in a large cohort of 71 intensive care units. Research linking improved climate scores and clinical outcomes is a critical next step.

Impact of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) on safety culture in a surgical inpatient unit

BACKGROUND A culture of teamwork and learning from mistakes are universally acknowledged as essential factors to improve patient safety. Both are part of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP), which improved safety in intensive care units but had not been evaluated in other inpatient settings. METHODS CUSP was implemented beginning in February 2008 on an 18-bed surgical floor at an academic medical center to improve patient safety, nurse/physician collaboration, and safety on the unit. This unit admits three to six patients per day from up to eight clinical services. RESULTS Staff implemented several interventions to reduce safety hazards and improve culture. Surgical patients admitted to one clinical service were cohorted on this unit to increase physician presence. A team-based goals sheet was implemented to improve communication and coordination of daily goals of care. Nurses were included on rounds to form an interdisciplinary team. Five of six culture domain scores demonstrated significant improvements from 2006 and 2007 to 2008. There was a 27% nurse turnover rate in 2006 and a 0% turnover rate in 2007 and 2008. CONCLUSIONS Improvements were observed in safety climate, teamwork climate, and nurse turnover rates on a surgical inpatient unit after implementing a safety program. As part of the CUSP process, staff described safety hazards and then as a team designed and implemented several interventions. CUSP is sufficiently structured to provide a strategy for health care organizations to improve culture and learn from mistakes, yet is flexible enough for units to focus on risks that they perceive as most important, given their context. Broad use of this program throughout health systems could arguably produce substantial improvements in patient safety.

How will we know patients are safer? An organization-wide approach to measuring and improving safety

Objective:Our institution, like many, is struggling to develop measures that answer the question, How do we know we are safer? Our objectives are to present a framework to evaluate performance in patient safety and describe how we applied this model in intensive care units. Design:We focus on measures of safety rather than broader measures of quality. The measures will allow health care organizations to evaluate whether they are safer now than in the past by answering the following questions: How often do we harm patients? How often do patients receive the appropriate interventions? How do we know we learned from defects? How well have we created a culture of safety? The first two measures are rate based, whereas the latter two are qualitative. To improve care within institutions, caregivers must be engaged, must participate in the selection and development of measures, and must receive feedback regarding their performance. The following attributes should be considered when evaluating potential safety measures: Measures must be important to the organization, must be valid (represent what they intend to measure), must be reliable (produce similar results when used repeatedly), must be feasible (affordable to collect data), must be usable for the people expected to employ the data to improve safety, and must have universal applicability within the entire institution. Setting:Health care institutions. Results:Health care currently lacks a robust safety score card. We developed four aggregate measures of patient safety and present how we applied them to intensive care units in an academic medical center. The same measures are being applied to nearly 200 intensive care units as part of ongoing collaborative projects. The measures include how often do we harm patients, how often do we do what we should (i.e., use evidence-based medicine), how do we know we learned from mistakes, and how well do we improve culture. Measures collected by different departments can then be aggregated to provide a hospital level safety score card. Conclusion:The science of measuring patient safety is immature. This article is a starting point for developing feasible and scientifically sound approaches to measure safety within an institution. Institutions will need to find a balance between measures that are scientifically sound, affordable, usable, and easily applied across the institution.

Operating room briefings: Working on the same page

This tool, which takes one or two minutes to use, provides a structured approach to promote effective interdisciplinary communication and teamwork in the operating room--or any other area, such as an intensive care unit, inpatient unit, or outpatient clinic.