Using patient self-checklist to improve the documentation of risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting: an implementation project.

Zhen Zheng, Jennifer Layton, Wanda Stelmach, Julie Crabbe, Jason Ma, Juris Briedis, Jeanette Atme, Debra Bourne, Raphael Hau, Sonja Cleary, Charlie C Xue
{"title":"Using patient self-checklist to improve the documentation of risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting: an implementation project.","authors":"Zhen Zheng,&nbsp;Jennifer Layton,&nbsp;Wanda Stelmach,&nbsp;Julie Crabbe,&nbsp;Jason Ma,&nbsp;Juris Briedis,&nbsp;Jeanette Atme,&nbsp;Debra Bourne,&nbsp;Raphael Hau,&nbsp;Sonja Cleary,&nbsp;Charlie C Xue","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common surgical complication, affecting 30-50% of patients and 80% in high risk populations. Successful prevention and management of PONV relies on accurately assessing individual risk prior to surgery. A valid and reliable Apfel score is commonly used to assess patients' risk. It is however challenging to translate this evidence into clinical practice. This evidence-based project aimed to identify the current practice of assessing and documenting the risk factors of PONV prior to surgery, and to develop strategies to improve the practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project had three phrases, including forming a team and conducting the baseline audit; identifying problems and developing strategies; and conducting a follow-up tool to assess the impact on compliance with best practice. A research team was formed. A baseline audit was conducted at a public hospital in Victoria in June 2016 to examine PONV risk assessment practice through checking medical files of surgical patients. A getting research into practice audit and feedback tool was used to identify barriers, implementation strategies, stakeholders and resources. After implementation, a second audit was conducted between June and October 2017. Audit criteria were based on a reliable and valid Apfel score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline, accurate PONV risk could only be calculated from 8% of patient files with no file formally recording the risk factors. The proportion of patients with three risk factors preoperatively, indicating high PONV risk, was 5.3%. Barriers identified were the perceived lack of necessity to record the risk, time constraint and too much paperwork. A self-checklist for risk assessment was developed to enable patients to check their own level of risk. Its face validity, construct validity and accuracy were examined. The checklist was then implemented for patients to complete prior to surgery. A number of strategies were used to improve the implementation. The second audit of 1308 files showed that at the end of audit period, 74% of patients had risk assessment conducted and documented postimplementation. 16.8% of the patients were identified as having high PONV risk, nearly triple the number identified at baseline.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A simple self-checklist of PONV risk was implemented. It greatly improved PONV risk assessment and documentation in a public hospital in Australia and enabled the identification of patients at high risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common surgical complication, affecting 30-50% of patients and 80% in high risk populations. Successful prevention and management of PONV relies on accurately assessing individual risk prior to surgery. A valid and reliable Apfel score is commonly used to assess patients' risk. It is however challenging to translate this evidence into clinical practice. This evidence-based project aimed to identify the current practice of assessing and documenting the risk factors of PONV prior to surgery, and to develop strategies to improve the practice.

Methods: The project had three phrases, including forming a team and conducting the baseline audit; identifying problems and developing strategies; and conducting a follow-up tool to assess the impact on compliance with best practice. A research team was formed. A baseline audit was conducted at a public hospital in Victoria in June 2016 to examine PONV risk assessment practice through checking medical files of surgical patients. A getting research into practice audit and feedback tool was used to identify barriers, implementation strategies, stakeholders and resources. After implementation, a second audit was conducted between June and October 2017. Audit criteria were based on a reliable and valid Apfel score.

Results: At baseline, accurate PONV risk could only be calculated from 8% of patient files with no file formally recording the risk factors. The proportion of patients with three risk factors preoperatively, indicating high PONV risk, was 5.3%. Barriers identified were the perceived lack of necessity to record the risk, time constraint and too much paperwork. A self-checklist for risk assessment was developed to enable patients to check their own level of risk. Its face validity, construct validity and accuracy were examined. The checklist was then implemented for patients to complete prior to surgery. A number of strategies were used to improve the implementation. The second audit of 1308 files showed that at the end of audit period, 74% of patients had risk assessment conducted and documented postimplementation. 16.8% of the patients were identified as having high PONV risk, nearly triple the number identified at baseline.

Conclusion: A simple self-checklist of PONV risk was implemented. It greatly improved PONV risk assessment and documentation in a public hospital in Australia and enabled the identification of patients at high risk.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用病人自我检查表改进术后恶心呕吐风险记录:一个实施项目。
背景和目的:术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)是一种常见的手术并发症,影响了30-50%的患者和80%的高危人群。PONV的成功预防和管理依赖于在手术前准确评估个体风险。有效可靠的Apfel评分通常用于评估患者的风险。然而,将这些证据转化为临床实践是具有挑战性的。本以证据为基础的项目旨在确定目前在手术前评估和记录PONV危险因素的做法,并制定改进做法的策略。方法:项目分为三个阶段,分别是组建团队和进行基线审核;发现问题并制定策略;并使用后续工具来评估对遵守最佳实践的影响。成立了一个研究小组。2016年6月,在维多利亚州的一家公立医院进行了基线审计,通过检查手术患者的医疗档案来检查PONV风险评估实践。对实践审计和反馈工具的研究被用于识别障碍、实施策略、利益相关者和资源。实施后,在2017年6月至10月期间进行了第二次审计。审计标准基于可靠和有效的Apfel评分。结果:在基线时,准确的PONV风险只能从8%的患者档案中计算出来,没有正式记录危险因素的档案。术前同时存在3种危险因素的患者中,有较高PONV风险的比例为5.3%。确定的障碍是认为没有必要记录风险、时间限制和太多的文书工作。制定了风险评估自我检查表,使患者能够检查自己的风险水平。并对其表面效度、结构效度和准确性进行了检验。然后实施检查表,让患者在手术前完成。采用了一些策略来改进执行。对1308份文件的第二次审核显示,在审核期结束时,74%的患者进行了风险评估,并记录了实施后的风险。16.8%的患者被确定为具有高PONV风险,几乎是基线时的三倍。结论:采用简单的PONV风险自检表。它极大地改进了澳大利亚一家公立医院的PONV风险评估和记录,并能够识别高风险患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey Artificial intelligence in health and science: an introspection A relação entre linguagem e práticas pseudocientíficas Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus among individuals with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1