Jamie M. Boyd

Developing a patient and family-centred approach for measuring the quality of injury care: a study protocol

BackgroundQuality indicators (QI) are used in health care to measure quality of service and performance improvement. Health care professionals and organizations caring for patients with injuries need information regarding the quality of care provided and the outcomes experienced in order to target improvement efforts. However, very little is known about the quality of injury care provided to individual patients and populations and even less about patients’ perspectives on quality of care. The absence of QIs that incorporate patient or family preferences, needs or values has been identified as an important gap in the science and practice of injury quality improvement. The primary objective of this research protocol is to develop and evaluate the first set of patient and family-centred QIs of injury care for critically injured patientsMethods/designThis mixed methods study is comprised of three Sub-Studies. Sub-Study A will utilize focus group methodology to describe the preferences, needs and values of critically injured patients and their family members regarding the quality of health care delivered. Qualitative content analysis of the transcripts will begin after the first completed focus group and will draw on grounded theory using a process of open, axial and selective coding. A panel of stakeholders will be assembled during Sub-Study B to review the themes identified from the focus groups and develop a catalogue of potential patient and family-centred QIs of injury care using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). The QIs developed by the stakeholder panel will be pilot tested in Sub-Study C using surveys of patients and their family members to determine construct validity, intra-rater reliability and clinical sensibility.DiscussionMeasuring the quality of injury care is but a first step towards improving patient outcomes. This research will develop the first set of patient and family-centred QIs of injury care. To improve patient care, we need accessible, reliable indicators of quality that are important to patients, and that can then be used to establish quality of care benchmarks, to flag potential problems or successes, follow trends over time and identify disparities across organizations, communities, populations and regions.

Establishing components of high-quality injury care: Focus groups with patients and patient families.

BACKGROUND Each year, injuries affect 700 million people worldwide, more than 5 million people die of injuries, and 68,000 survivors remain permanently impaired. Half of all critically injured patients do not receive recommended care, and medical errors are common. Little is known about the aspects of injury care that are important to patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of patients and families affected by injury on desired components of injury care in the hospital setting. METHODS With the use of a grounded theory approach, this qualitative study involved focus groups with injured patients, family members of survivors, and bereaved family members from four Canadian trauma (injury care) centers. RESULTS Thirty-eight participants included injured patients (n = 16), family members of survivors (n = 13), and bereaved family members (n = 9) across four trauma (injury care) centers in different jurisdictions. Participants articulated numerous themes reflecting important components of injury care organized across three domains as follows: clinical care (staff availability, professionalism, physical comfort, adverse events), holistic care (patient wellness, respect for patient and family, family access to patient, family wellness, hospital facilities, supportive care), and communication and information (among staff, with or from staff, content, delivery, and timing). Bereaved family members commented on decision making and end-of-life processes. Subthemes were revealed in most of these themes. Trends by site or type of participant were not identified. CONCLUSION The framework of patient- and family-derived components of quality injury care could be used by health care managers and policy makers to guide quality improvement efforts. Further research is needed to extend and validate these components among injured patients and families elsewhere. Translating these components into quality indicators and blending those with measures that reflect a provider perspective may offer a comprehensive means of assessing injury care.

Engaging the Public to Identify Opportunities to Improve Critical Care: A Qualitative Analysis of an Open Community Forum

Objective To engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients. Design A qualitative content analysis of an open community forum (Café Scientifique). Setting Public venue in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Participants Members of the general public including patients, families of patients, health care providers, and members of the community at large. Methods A panel of researchers, decision-makers, and a family member led a Café Scientifique, an informal dialogue between the populace and experts, over three-hours to engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients. Conventional qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. The inductive analysis occurred in three phases: coding, categorizing, and developing themes. Results Thirty-eight members of the public (former ICU patients, family members of patients, providers, community members) attended. Participants focused the discussion and provided concrete suggestions for improvement around communication (family as surrogate voice, timing of conversations, decision tools) and provider well-being and engagement, as opposed to medical interventions in critical care. Conclusions Café participants believe patient and family centered care is important to ensure high-quality care in the ICU. A Café Scientifique is a valuable forum to engage the public to contribute to priority setting areas for research in critical care, as well as a platform to share lived experience. Research stakeholders including health care organizations, governments, and funding organizations should provide more opportunities for the public to engage in meaningful conversations about how to best improve healthcare.

Patient, family and provider experiences with transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Transfer of patient care from an intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is often challenging, high risk and inefficient. We assessed patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to high-quality transfers and recommendations to improve the transfer process. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews of participants from a multicentre prospective cohort study of ICU transfers conducted at 10 hospitals across Canada. We purposively sampled 1 patient, 1 family member of a patient, 1 ICU provider, and 1 ward provider at each of the 8 English-speaking sites. Qualitative content analysis was used to derive themes, subthemes and recommendations. RESULTS: The 35 participants described 3 interrelated, overarching themes perceived as barriers or facilitators to high-quality patient transfers: resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Common recommendations suggested to improve ICU transfers included implementing standardized communication tools that streamline provider–provider and provider–patient communication, using multimodal communication to facilitate timely, accurate, durable and mutually reinforcing information transfer; and developing procedures to manage delays in transfer to ensure continuity of care for patients in the ICU waiting for a hospital ward bed. INTERPRETATION: Patient and provider perspectives attribute breakdown of ICU-to-ward transfers of care to resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Patients and providers recommend standardized, multimodal communication and transfer procedures to improve quality of care.

A retrospective cohort study of the relationship between quality indicator measurement and patient outcomes in adult trauma centers in the United States

BACKGROUND Improving care is a key strategy for reducing the burden of injuries, but it is unknown whether the use of quality indicators (QI) is associated with patient outcomes. We sought to evaluate the association between the use of QIs by trauma centers and outcomes in adult injury patients. METHODS We identified consecutive adult patients (n=223,015) admitted to 233 verified trauma centers January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010 that contributed data to the National Trauma Data Bank and participated in a survey of QI practices. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were employed to evaluate the association between the intensity (number of QIs) and nature (report cards, internal and external benchmarking) of QI use and survival to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS There were no significant differences in the odds of survival to trauma center discharge according to the number of QIs measured (quartiles; odds ratio{OR} [95% confidence interval{CI}] 1.00 vs. 1.08 [0.90-1.31] vs. 1.00 [0.82-1.22] vs. 1.21 [0.99-1.49]), or whether centers used reports cards (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.94-1.23), internal (OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.89-1.26) or external (OR 1.09, 95%CI 0.92-1.31) benchmarking. The duration (geometric mean) of mechanical ventilation (4.0days), ICU stay (4.6days), hospital stay (7.7days) and proportion of patients with a complication (13.6%) did not significantly differ according to the intensity or nature of QI use. CONCLUSIONS The intensity and nature of the QIs used by trauma centers was not associated with outcomes of patient care. Alternative quality improvement strategies may be needed.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care. Background: Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care. Methods: Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation. Results: A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria. Conclusions: Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making

Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations.

Short form version of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SF QTAC-PREM)

ObjectiveTo enable the valid and reliable measurement of patient experiences we previously published a multicenter multi-center validation of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM). The purpose of this study was to derive a simplified, short form version of the QTAC-PREM to further enhance the feasibility of measuring patient experiences in injury care. To identify candidate items for the short form we reviewed the results of the original multi-center long form validation cohort study, which included 400 injury care patients and their family members recruited from three trauma centers. We only included the best performing items on the revised short form.ResultsThe acute care component of the measure was shortened by 30% and the post-acute care component was shortened by 42%. We identified two subscales on the acute measure (information and communication; clinical and ancillary care) and one subscale on the post-acute measure (post-discharge information and communication). The measurement properties of the short form measure were similar to that of the validated long form. This short form assessment of patient injury care experiences offers a useful, practical, and easy tool for trauma centers to implement for service evaluation, quality improvement, and injury care research.

Developing a framework to guide the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care medicine: a study protocol

BackgroundHealthcare systems have difficulty incorporating scientific evidence into clinical practice, especially when science suggests that existing clinical practices are of low-value (e.g. ineffective or harmful to patients). While a number of lists outlining low-value practices in acute care medicine currently exist, less is known about how best to initiate and sustain the removal of low-value clinical practices (i.e. de-adoption). This study will develop a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators to the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care facilities to inform the development of a framework to guide the de-adoption process.MethodsThe proposed project is a multi-stage mixed methods study to develop a framework to guide the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care medicine that will be tested in a representative sample of acute care settings in Alberta, Canada. Specifically, we will: 1) conduct a systematic review of the de-adoption literature to identify published barriers and facilitators to the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care medicine and any associated interventions proposed (Phase one); 2) conduct focus groups with acute care stakeholders to identify important themes not published in the literature and obtain a comprehensive appreciation of stakeholder perspectives (Phase two); 3) extend the generalizability of focus group findings by conducting individual stakeholder surveys with a representative sample of acute care providers throughout the province to determine which barriers and facilitators identified in Phases one and two are most relevant in their clinical setting (Phase three). Identified barriers and facilitators will be catalogued and integrated with targeted interventions in a framework to guide the process of de-adoption in each of four targeted areas of acute care medicine (Emergency Medicine, Cardiovascular Health and Stroke, Surgery and Critical Care Medicine). Analyses will be descriptive using a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses.DiscussionThere is a growing body of literature suggesting that the de-adoption of ineffective or harmful practices from patient care is integral to the delivery of high quality care and healthcare sustainability. The framework developed in this study will map barriers and facilitators to de-adoption to the most appropriate interventions, allowing stakeholders to effectively initiate, execute and sustain this process in an evidence-based manner.

Administrator Perspectives on ICU-to-Ward Transfers and Content Contained in Existing Transfer Tools: a Cross-sectional Survey

The transfer of critically ill patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward is challenging. Shortcomings in the delivery of care for patients transferred from the ICU have been associated with higher healthcare costs and poor satisfaction with care. Little is known about how hospital ward providers, who accept care of these patients, perceive current transfer practices nor which aspects of transfer they perceive as needing improvement. To compare ICU and ward administrator perspectives regarding ICU-to-ward transfer practices and evaluate the content of transfer tools. Cross-sectional survey design. We administered a survey to 128 medical and/or surgical ICU and 256 ward administrators to obtain institutional perspectives on ICU transfer practices. We performed qualitative content analysis on ICU transfer tools received from respondents. In total, 108 (77%) ICU and 160 (63%) ward administrators responded to the survey. The ICU attending physician was reported to be “primarily responsible” for the safety (93% vs. 91%; p = 0.515) of patient transfers. ICU administrators more commonly perceived discharge summaries to be routinely included in patient transfers than ward administrators (81% vs. 60%; p = 0.006). Both groups identified information provided to patients/families, patient/family participation during transfer, and ICU-ward collaboration as opportunities for improvement. A minority of hospitals used ICU-to-ward transfer tools (11%) of which most (n = 21 unique) were designed to communicate patient information between providers (71%) and comprised six categories of information: demographics, patient clinical course, corrective aids, mobility at discharge, review of systems, and documentation of transfer procedures. ICU and ward administrators have similar perspectives of transfer practices and identified patient/family engagement and communication as priorities for improvement. Key information categories exist.BackgroundThe transfer of critically ill patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward is challenging. Shortcomings in the delivery of care for patients transferred from the ICU have been associated with higher healthcare costs and poor satisfaction with care. Little is known about how hospital ward providers, who accept care of these patients, perceive current transfer practices nor which aspects of transfer they perceive as needing improvement.ObjectiveTo compare ICU and ward administrator perspectives regarding ICU-to-ward transfer practices and evaluate the content of transfer tools.DesignCross-sectional survey design.ParticipantsWe administered a survey to 128 medical and/or surgical ICU and 256 ward administrators to obtain institutional perspectives on ICU transfer practices. We performed qualitative content analysis on ICU transfer tools received from respondents.Key ResultsIn total, 108 (77%) ICU and 160 (63%) ward administrators responded to the survey. The ICU attending physician was reported to be “primarily responsible” for the safety (93% vs. 91%; p = 0.515) of patient transfers. ICU administrators more commonly perceived discharge summaries to be routinely included in patient transfers than ward administrators (81% vs. 60%; p = 0.006). Both groups identified information provided to patients/families, patient/family participation during transfer, and ICU-ward collaboration as opportunities for improvement. A minority of hospitals used ICU-to-ward transfer tools (11%) of which most (n = 21 unique) were designed to communicate patient information between providers (71%) and comprised six categories of information: demographics, patient clinical course, corrective aids, mobility at discharge, review of systems, and documentation of transfer procedures.ConclusionICU and ward administrators have similar perspectives of transfer practices and identified patient/family engagement and communication as priorities for improvement. Key information categories exist.