Hanan Aboumatar

A Descriptive Study of Morbidity and Mortality Conferences and Their Conformity to Medical Incident Analysis Models: Results of the Morbidity and Mortality Conference Improvement Study, Phase 1

The purpose of this article is to study morbidity and mortality conferences and their conformity to medical incident analysis models. Structured interviews with morbidity and mortality conference leaders of 12 (75%) clinical departments at Johns Hopkins Hospital were conducted. Reported morbidity and mortality conference goals included medical management (75%), teaching (58%), and patient safety and quality improvement (42%). Methods for case identification, selection, presentation, and analysis varied among departments. Morbidity and mortality conferences were attended mostly by physicians from the respective departments. One (8%) department had a standard approach for eliciting input from all providers on the case, another (8%) used a structured tool to explore underlying system factors, and 7 (58%) departments had a plan for assigning follow-up on recommendations. There is wide variation in how morbidity and mortality conferences are conducted across departments and little conformity to known models for analyzing medical incidents. Models for best practices in conducting morbidity and mortality conferences are needed. (Am J Med Qual 2007; 22:232-238)

Implementing a Perioperative Handoff Tool to Improve Postprocedural Patient Transfers

Handoffs in the perioperative setting--the period during which the patient leaves the operating room (OR) and arrives at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) or intensive care unit (ICU)--have received little attention. A perioperative handoff tool consisting of an OR-to-ICU/PACU protocol and checklists incorporates a defined process, a specified team structure, a procedure for technology transfer, and clearly defined information elements to share. The tool could be applied to any periprocedural setting in which a patient is physically transferred from the procedural location (with the associated procedural team) to a postprocedural care unit with a different care team.

Clinical Communities at Johns Hopkins Medicine: An Emerging Approach to Quality Improvement

BACKGROUND Clinical communities are an emerging approach to quality improvement (QI) to which several large-scale projects have attributed some success. In 2011 the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality established clinical communities as a core strategy to connect frontline providers from six different hospitals to improve quality of care, patient safety, and value across the health system. CLINICAL COMMUNITIES: Fourteen clinical communities that presented great opportunity for improvement were established. A community could focus on a clinical area, a patient population, a group, a process, a safety-related issue, or nearly any health care issue. The collaborative spirit of the communities embraced interdisciplinary membership and representation from each hospital in each community. Communities engaged in team-building activities and facilitated discussions, met monthly, and were encouraged to meet in person to develop relationships and build trust. After a community was established, patients and families were invited to join and share their perspectives and experiences. ENABLING STRUCTURES: The clinical community structure provided clinicians access to resources, such as technical experts and safety and QI researchers, that were not easily otherwise accessible or available. Communities convened clinicians from each hospital to consider safety problems and their resolution and share learning with workplace peers and local unit safety teams. CONCLUSION The clinical communities engaged 195 clinicians from across the health system in QI projects and peer learning. Challenges included limited financial support and time for clinicians, timely access to data, limited resources from the health system, and not enough time with improvement experts.

The Armstrong Institute: An Academic Institute for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, Research, Training, and Practice.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) could advance the science of health care delivery, improve patient safety and quality improvement, and enhance value, but many centers have fragmented efforts with little accountability. Johns Hopkins Medicine, the AMC under which the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Health System are organized, experienced similar challenges, with operational patient safety and quality leadership separate from safety and quality-related research efforts. To unite efforts and establish accountability, the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality was created in 2011. The authors describe the development, purpose, governance, function, and challenges of the institute to help other AMCs replicate it and accelerate safety and quality improvement. The purpose is to partner with patients, their loved ones, and all interested parties to end preventable harm, continuously improve patient outcomes and experience, and eliminate waste in health care. A governance structure was created, with care mapped into seven categories, to oversee the quality and safety of all patients treated at a Johns Hopkins Medicine entity. The governance has a Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee that sets strategic goals, and the institute communicates these goals throughout the health system and supports personnel in meeting these goals. The institute is organized into 13 functional councils reflecting their behaviors and purpose. The institute works daily to build the capacity of clinicians trained in safety and quality through established programs, advance improvement science, and implement and evaluate interventions to improve the quality of care and safety of patients.

A multi-level system quality improvement intervention to reduce racial disparities in hypertension care and control: study protocol

BackgroundRacial disparities in blood pressure control have been well documented in the United States. Research suggests that many factors contribute to this disparity, including barriers to care at patient, clinician, healthcare system, and community levels. To date, few interventions aimed at reducing hypertension disparities have addressed factors at all of these levels. This paper describes the design of Project ReD CHiP (Reducing Disparities and Controlling Hypertension in Primary Care), a multi-level system quality improvement project. By intervening on multiple levels, this project aims to reduce disparities in blood pressure control and improve guideline concordant hypertension care.MethodsUsing a pragmatic trial design, we are implementing three complementary multi-level interventions designed to improve blood pressure measurement, provide patient care management services and offer expanded provider education resources in six primary care clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. We are staggering the introduction of the interventions and will use Statistical Process Control (SPC) charting to determine if there are changes in outcomes at each clinic after implementation of each intervention. The main hypothesis is that each intervention will have an additive effect on improvements in guideline concordant care and reductions in hypertension disparities, but the combination of all three interventions will result in the greatest impact, followed by blood pressure measurement with care management support, blood pressure measurement with provider education, and blood pressure measurement only. This study also examines how organizational functioning and cultural competence affect the success of the interventions.DiscussionAs a quality improvement project, Project ReD CHiP employs a novel study design that specifically targets multi-level factors known to contribute to hypertension disparities. To facilitate its implementation and improve its sustainability, we have incorporated stakeholder input and tailored components of the interventions to meet the specific needs of the involved clinics and communities. Results from this study will provide knowledge about how integrated multi-level interventions can improve hypertension care and reduce disparities.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01566864

Patient and Family Perspectives on Respect and Dignity in the Intensive Care Unit

Respect and dignity are central to moral life, and have a particular importance in health care settings such as the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted 15 semistructured interviews with 21 participants during an ICU admission to explore the definition of, and specific behaviors that demonstrate, respect and dignity during treatment in the ICU. We transcribed interviews and conducted thematic qualitative analysis. Seven themes emerged that focused on what it means to be treated with respect and/or dignity: treated as a person; Golden Rule; acknowledgement; treated as family/friend; treated as an individual; treated as important/valuable; and treated as equal. Participants described particular behaviors or actions that were considered related to demonstrating treatment with respect and dignity: listening; honesty/giving information; attention to body/modesty/appearance; caring/bedside manner; patient and family as an information source; attention to pain; and responsiveness. These behaviors provide a framework for improving experiences with care in the ICU.

Applying Lean Sigma Solutions to Mistake-Proof the Chemotherapy Preparation Process

BACKGROUND Errors related to high-alert medications, such as chemotherapeutic agents, have resulted in serious adverse events. A fast-paced application of Lean Sigma methodology was used to safeguard the chemotherapy preparation process against errors and increase compliance with United States Pharmacopeia 797 (USP 797) regulations. WORKSHOP STRUCTURE AND PROCESS On Days 1 and 2 of a Lean Sigma workshop, frontline staff studied the chemotherapy preparation process. During Days 2 and 3, interventions were developed and implementation was started. FINDINGS AND INTERVENTIONS The workshop participants were satisfied with the speed at which improvements were put to place using the structured workshop format. The multiple opportunities for error identified related to the chemotherapy preparation process, workspace layout, distractions, increased movement around ventilated hood areas, and variation in medication processing and labeling procedures. Mistake-proofing interventions were then introduced via workspace redesign, process redesign, and development of standard operating procedures for pharmacy staff. Interventions were easy to implement and sustainable. Reported medication errors reaching patients and requiring monitoring decreased, whereas the number of reported near misses increased, suggesting improvement in identifying errors before reaching the patients. DISCUSSION Application of Lean Sigma solutions enabled the development of a series of relatively inexpensive and easy to implement mistake-proofing interventions that reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy preparation errors and increase compliance with USP 797 regulations. The findings and interventions are generalizable and can inform mistake-proofing interventions in all types of pharmacies.

Promising Practices for Achieving Patient-centered Hospital Care: A National Study of High-performing US Hospitals.

Background:Patient-centered care is integral to health care quality, yet little is known regarding how to achieve patient-centeredness in the hospital setting. The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey measures patients’ reports on clinician behaviors deemed by patients as key to a high-quality hospitalization experience. Objectives:We conducted a national study of hospitals that achieved the highest performance on HCAHPS to identify promising practices for improving patient-centeredness, common challenges met, and how those were addressed. Research Design:We identified hospitals that achieved the top ranks or remarkable recent improvements on HCAHPS and surveyed key informants at these hospitals. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we described the interventions used at these hospitals and developed an explanatory model for achieving patient-centeredness in hospital care. Results:Fifty-two hospitals participated in this study. Hospitals used similar interventions that focused on improving responsiveness to patient needs, the discharge experience, and patient-clinician interactions. To improve responsiveness, hospitals used proactive nursing rounds (reported at 83% of hospitals) and executive/leader rounds (62%); for the discharge experience, multidisciplinary rounds (56%), postdischarge calls (54%), and discharge folders (52%) were utilized; for clinician-patient interactions, hospitals promoted specific desired behaviors (65%) and set behavioral standards (60%) for which employees were held accountable. Similar strategies were also used to achieve successful intervention implementation including HCAHPS data feedback, and employee and leader engagement and accountability. Conclusions:High-performing hospitals used a set of patient-centered care processes that involved both leaders and clinicians in ensuring that patient needs and preferences are addressed.

The perioperative handoff protocol: evaluating impacts on handoff defects and provider satisfaction in adult perianesthesia care units.

STUDY OBJECTIVE To evaluate a new perioperative handoff protocol in the adult perianesthesia care units (PACUs). DESIGN Prospective, unblinded cross-sectional study. SETTING Perianesthesia care unit in a tertiary care facility serving 55,000 patients annually. PATIENTS One hundred three surgery patients. INTERVENTIONS During a 4-week preintervention phase, 53 perioperative handoffs were observed, and data were collected daily by a trained observer. Educational sessions were conducted to train perioperative practitioners on the new protocol. Two weeks after implementation, 50 consecutive handoffs were observed, and practitioners were surveyed with the same methodology as in the preintervention phase. MEASUREMENTS Type of information shared, type and duration of procedure, total duration of handoff, number and type of providers at the bedside, number of report interruptions, environmental distractions, and any other disruptive events. Observers also tracked technical/equipment problems to include malfunctioning or compromised operation of medical equipment, such as the cardiac monitor, transducer, oxygen tank, and pulse oximeter. MAIN RESULTS A total of 103 handoffs were observed (53 preintervention and 50 postintervention). The mean number of defects per handoff decreased from 9.92 to 3.68 (P < .01). The mean number of missed information items from the surgery report decreased from 7.57 to 1.2 items per handoff and from 2.02 to 0.94 (P < .01) for the anesthesia report. Technical defects reported by unit nurses decreased from 0.34 to 0.10 (P = .04). Verbal reports delivered by surgeons increased from 21.2% to 83.3%. Although the mean duration of handoffs increased by 2 minutes (P = .01), the average time from patient arrival at PACU to handoff start was reduced by 1.5 minutes (P = .01). Satisfaction with the handoff improved significantly among PACU nurses. CONCLUSIONS The perioperative handoff protocol implementation was associated with improved information sharing and reduced handoff defects.

Creating a Transdisciplinary Research Center to Reduce Cardiovascular Health Disparities in Baltimore, Maryland: Lessons Learned

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) disparities continue to have a negative impact on African Americans in the United States, largely because of uncontrolled hypertension. Despite the availability of evidence-based interventions, their use has not been translated into clinical and public health practice. The Johns Hopkins Center to Eliminate Cardiovascular Health Disparities is a new transdisciplinary research program with a stated goal to lower the impact of CVD disparities on vulnerable populations in Baltimore, Maryland. By targeting multiple levels of influence on the core problem of disparities in Baltimore, the center leverages academic, community, and national partnerships and a novel structure to support 3 research studies and to train the next generation of CVD researchers. We also share the early lessons learned in the centers design.