Journal for Healthcare Quality最新文献

Background: Many medications are low-risk but must undergo the same ordering process as high-risk medications in the inpatient setting. Nurses identify the need for supportive medications and notify providers. An order panel and policy were developed to allow nurses to order low-risk, supportive medications.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to increase order panel utilization from a 6% to a goal of 15%.

Methods: This was a quality improvement study at a 1000-bed academic medical center. Five plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles were implemented. The primary end point was order panel utilization, and secondary end points were individual nursing unit utilization and the number of orders for each medication on the panel.

Results: After each PDSA cycle, order panel utilization improved to 7.8%, 13.2%, 7.5%, 10.2%, and 10.6%, respectively. The units using the order panel most often were general medicine (n = 95, 28%), medical intensive care (n = 71, 21%), and inpatient oncology (n = 40, 12%). The medication most frequently ordered was lanolin alcohols-mineral oil with petrolatum (Eucerin) cream (n = 220, 28%).

Conclusions: Order panel utilization improved from a baseline of 6% to an average of 9.9%. Increasing awareness of the order panel and adding medications will contribute to improvement in order panel utilization in the long-term.

Level of evidence: 4, Descriptive quality improvement project.

Abstract: No previous works have analyzed whether the order in which surgical teams see patients on morning rounds affects discharge efficiency at teaching hospitals. We obtained perioperative urologic surgery timing data at our academic institution from 2014 to 2019. We limited the analysis to routine postoperative day 1 discharges. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine whether various hospital and patient factors were associated with discharge timing. We analyzed 1,494 patients. Average discharge order time was 11:22 a.m. and hospital discharge 1:24 p.m. Univariate regression revealed earlier discharge order time for patients seen later in rounds by 4 minutes per sequential room cluster (p = .013) and by 12 minutes per cluster when excluding short-stay patients. Multivariate analysis revealed discharge order placement did not vary significantly by rounding order. However, time of hospital discharge did (p < .001), likely due to speed of discharge in the designated short-stay units. Attending physician was the most consistent predictor in variations of discharge timing, with statistical significance across all measured outcomes. Patients seen later in rounding progression received earlier discharge orders, but this relationship does not remain in multivariate modeling or translate to earlier discharge. These findings have helped guide quality improvement efforts focused on discharge efficiency.

Abstract: In this study, we sought to determine the effect of implementing a large-scale discharge follow-up phone call program on hospital readmission rates. Previous work has shown that patients with unaddressed concerns during discharge have significantly higher rates of care complications and hospital readmissions. This study is an observational quality improvement project completed from April 17, 2020 to January 31, 2022 at 22 hospitals in a large, integrated academic health system. A nurse-led scripted discharge follow-up phone call program was implemented to contact all patients discharged from inpatient care within 72 hours of discharge. Readmission rates were tracked before and after project implementation. Over a 21-month span, 137,515 phone calls were placed, and 57.92% of patients were successfully contacted within 7 days of discharge. The 7-day readmission rate for contacted patients was 2.91% compared with 4.73% for noncontacted patients. The 30-day readmission rate for contacted patients was 11.00% compared with 12.17% for noncontacted patients. We have found that discharge follow-up phone calls targeting patients decreases risk of readmission, which improves overall patient outcomes.

Background: A systematic literature review was performed to understand the prevalence, advantages, and disadvantages of blood collection using different approaches (direct venipuncture or vascular access devices), and interventions used to mitigate the disadvantages.

Methods: The review included a broad range of study designs and outcomes. Database searches (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) were conducted in March 2021 and supplemented by hand searching.

Results: One hundred forty-one publications were included. The data indicate that blood sampling from vascular access devices is common in emergency departments, trauma centers, and intensive care units. Studies showed that hemolysis and sample contamination place a considerable economic burden on hospitals. Significant cost savings could be made through enforcing strict aseptic technique, or using the initial specimen diversion technique.

Conclusions: Hemolysis and sample contamination are far from inevitable in vascular access device-collected or venipuncture samples; both can be reduced through adherence to strict blood sampling protocols and utilization of the initial specimen diversion technique. Needle-free blood collection devices offer further hope for reducing hemolysis. No publication focused on the difficult venous access population; insertion success rates are likely to be lower (and the benefits of vascular access devices higher) in these patients.