Top

Current Anesthesiology Reports

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Patient Safety in Anesthesia (A Barbeito, Section Editor)

Improvement Science in Anaesthesia

Authors: Duncan T. Wagstaff, James Bedford, S. Ramani Moonesinghe

Published in: Current Anesthesiology Reports | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This article offers an overview of the history and features of Improvement Science in general and some of its applications to Anaesthesia in particular.

Recent Findings

Improvement Science is an evolving discipline aiming to generate learning from quality improvement interventions. An increasingly common approach to improving Anaesthesia services is to employ large-scale perioperative data measurement and feedback programmes. Improvement Science offers important insights on questions such as which indicators to collect data for; how to capture that data; how it can be presented in engaging visual formats; how it could/should be fed back to frontline staff and how they can be supported in their use of data to generate improvement.

Summary

Data measurement and feedback systems represent opportunities for anaesthetists to work with multidisciplinary colleagues to help improve services and outcomes for surgical patients. Improvement Science can help evaluate which approaches work, and in which contexts, and is therefore of value to healthcare commissioners, providers and patients.

• The Health Foundation. Evidence scan: Improvement science [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.health.org.uk/sites/health/files/ImprovementScience.pdf. This research scan summarises readily available research about the concept and practice of improvement science. It is not a systematic review and does not seek to summarise theoretical literature or to explore the narrative development of improvement science..

Shojania KG, Grimshaw JM. Evidence-based quality improvement: the state of the science. Health Aff. 2005;24:138–50.CrossRef

Bellin E, Fletcher DD, Geberer N, Islam S, Srivastava N. Democratizing information creation from health care data for quality improvement, research, and education—the Montefiore Medical Center Experience. Acad Med. 2010;85:1362–8. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00001888-201008000-00024 CrossRefPubMed

Margolis P, Provost LP, Schoettker PJ, Britto MT. Quality improvement, clinical research, and quality improvement research—opportunities for integration. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2009;56:831–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660630 CrossRef

• Berwick DM. The science of improvement. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2008;299:1182–4. A commentary article discussing the emergence of improvement science and some of the barriers to adoption of change within healthcare systems. A good starting point to those with little knowledge of Improvement Science. CrossRef

Moonesinghe SR, Peden CJ. Theory and context: putting the science into improvement. Br. J. Anaesth. 2017;118:482–4. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/bja/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/bja/aew469 CrossRefPubMed

•• Marshall M, Pronovost P, Dixon-Woods M. Promotion of improvement as a science. Lancet. 2013;381:419–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61850-9. A viewpoint article from experts in the field of Improvement Science discussing the theoretical underpinnings of Improvement Science for Anaesthetists. CrossRefPubMed

Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage; 1997.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690184/pdf/milq0082-0581.pdf CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Goeschel CA, Weiss WM, Pronovost PJ. Using a logic model to design and evaluate quality and patient safety improvement programs. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2012;24:330–7.CrossRef

11.

Dixon-Woods M, Leslie M, Bion J, Tarrant C. What counts? An ethnographic study of infection data reported to a patient safety program. Milbank Q. 2012;90:548–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

• Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:228–38. Available from: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/content/24/3/228.long. This article explores the role and value of theory in improvement work in healthcare. It explores the characteristics of grand, mid-range and programme theory; considering the consequences of misusing theory or failing to use it. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Helfrich CD, Damschroder LJ, Hagedorn HJ, Daggett GS, Sahay A, Ritchie M, et al. A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci. 2010;5:82. Available from: http://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-5-82 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. Available from: http://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Kaplan HC, Provost LP, Froehle CM, Margolis PA. The model for understanding success in quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:13–20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835762 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Montroy J, Breau RH, Cnossen S, Witiuk K, Binette A, Ferrier T, et al. Change in adverse events after enrollment in the national surgical quality improvement program: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–14.CrossRef

17.

Aveling E-L, McCulloch P, Dixon-Woods M. A qualitative study comparing experiences of the surgical safety checklist in hospitals in high-income and low-income countries. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003039. Available from: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003039 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Fulop N, Robert G. Context for successful quality improvement. London; 2015.

19.

Charles D, Gabriel M, Searcy T, Carolina N, Carolina S. Adoption of electronic health record systems among U.S. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals: 2008–2014. ONC Data Br. 2015;4:1–10.CrossRef

20.

NHS England. Five year forward view [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf%5Cn, http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/futurenhs/%5Cn, http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/specialisms/management/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-nhs-five-year-plan/5076090.article?cm_.

21.

• Etzioni D, Nabil W, Dueck A, Cima RR, Hohmann SF, Naessens JM, et al. Association of hospital participation in a surgical outcomes monitoring program with inpatient complications and mortality. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313:505–11. Sentinal paper reporting outcomes from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). The first reported programme aimed at delivering quality improvement at a national scale CrossRef

22.

Ishwarappa, Anuradha J. A brief introduction on Big Data 5Vs characteristics and Hadoop Technology. Proc Comput Sci. 2015;48:319–24. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877050915006973 CrossRef

23.

• Needham DM, Sinopoli DJ, Dinglas VD, Berenholtz SM, Korupolu R, Watson SR, et al. Improving data quality control in quality improvement projects. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2009;21:145–50. Available from: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-62849092265&partnerID=tZOtx3y1. Article discussing the potential problems of data quality control within quality improvement projects. It uses the Michigan Central Venous Catheter project as an example with practical suggestions on how to ensure good data quality in quality. CrossRef

24.

Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report [Internet]. London; 2008. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228836/7432.pdf.

25.

National Quality Forum. The ABCs of measurement [Internet]. Washington; Available from: https://www.qualityforum.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=44311.

26.

Iezzoni LI. Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes. 4th ed. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2012.

27.

Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Jm Y, Sd F, Ma OB, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes ( review ). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:1–227.

28.

• D’Lima D, Arnold G, Brett SJ, Bottle A, Smith J, Benn J. Continuous monitoring and feedback of quality of recovery indicators for anaesthetists: a qualitative investigation of reported effects on professional behaviour. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119:115–24. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/bja/article-abstract/119/1/115/3897061/Continuous-monitoring-and-feedback-of-quality-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext. This paper discusses the requirements for effective feedback on quality of anaesthetic care for anaesthetists, highlighting mechanisms by which feedback may translate into improvements in practice at the individual and peer-group level. CrossRefPubMed

29.

•• McQuillan RF, Silver SA, Harel Z, Weizman A, Thomas A, Bell C, et al. How to measure and interpret quality improvement data. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016; 11:908–914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.11511015. This article gives an overview of methods used to design and carry out a quality improvement project. It introduces the reader to methods used in Improvement Science, using a clinical example as a basis. A very useful read for anyone planning a quality improvement project.

30.

• Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458–64. This article discusses the application of Statistical Process Control Charts—a method of continuously monitoring processes and outcome commonly used in Improvement Science. It provides a clear introduction to their design and use for those without prior knowledge and would also be a useful revision article for those with pevious experience of them. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Lovegrove J, Valencia O, Treasure T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S. Monitoring the results of cardiac surgery by variable life-adjusted display. Lancet. 1997;350:1128–30.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sherlaw-Johnson C. A method for detecting runs of good and bad clinical outcomes on variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) charts. Health Care Manag Sci. 2005;8:61–5.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pagel C, Utley M, Crowe S, Witter T, Anderson D, Samson R, et al. Real time monitoring of risk-adjusted paediatric cardiac surgery outcomes using variable life-adjusted display: implementation in three UK centres. Heart. 2013;99:1445–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Tan HB, Cross SF, Goodacre SW. Application of variable life adjusted display (VLAD) in early detection of deficiency in trauma care. Emerg Med J. 2005;22:726–8. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1726567&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Foltran F, Baldi I, Bertolini G, Merletti F, Gregori D. Monitoring the performance of intensive care units using the variable life-adjusted display: a simulation study to explore its applicability and efficiency. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:506–13.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Cook DA, Duke G, Hart GK, Pilcher D, Mullany D. Review of the application of risk-adjusted charts to analyse mortality outcomes in critical care. Crit Care Resusc. 2008;10:239–51.PubMed

37.

• Allwood D. Engaging clinicians in quality improvement through National Clinical Audit. Rep. to Healthc. Qual. Improv. Partnersh. [Internet]. 2014;2014. Available from: http://www.hqip.org.uk/public/cms/253/625/19/373/Engaging-Clinicians-in-Quality-Improvement-Through-National-Clinical-Audit.pdf?realName=ctxnKi.pdf&v=0. An extensive report commissioned by Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership exploring the barriers preventing national audits and registries from having more of an impact in areas such as improvement of the services audited and the assurance of the quality of services.

38.

Dixon-Woods M, Baker R, Charles K, Dawson J, Jerzembek G, Martin G, et al. Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:106–15. Available from: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001947 CrossRefPubMed

39.

de Silva D. What’s getting in the way? Barriers to improvement in the NHS [Internet]. London; 2015. Available from: http://www.health.org.uk/publications/what-s-getting-in-the-way/.

40.

Dixon N, Pearce M. Guide to using quality improvement tools to drive clinical audits [Internet]. Healthc. Qual. Quest. 2011. Available from: http://www.hqip.org.uk/public/cms/253/625/19/193/HQIP-Guide-to-Using-Quality-Improvement-Tools-to-Drive-CA-2011.pdf?realName=NIgOW4.pdf&v=0.

41.

Sinha S, Keenan D, Krishnamoorthy S, Richards M. Workshop report: using trust-level national clinical audit data to support quality assurance and quality improvement [Internet]. London; 2016. Available from: http://www.hqip.org.uk/public/cms/253/625/19/571/HQIP-CQC Nov 2016 workshop report - NCA data for QA and QI-FINAL.pdf?realName=p2wPUr.pdf&v=0.

42.

Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Wright J, Meads D, et al. Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Heal Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5:1–280. Available from: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr05020/ CrossRef

43.

• Pearse RM. Enhanced peri-operative care for high-risk patients (EPOCH ) trial: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial of a quality improvement intervention for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. 2013;1–26. Available from: http://www.epochtrial.org/docs/EPOCH Protocol v1 0final.pdf. Study protocol for a large pragmatic clinical trial of the effectiveness of a quality improvement project to implement an evidence based care pathway to improve patient outcomes following emergency laparotomy. The trial is yet to report, but the protocol provides insight into a large multicentre quality improvement initiative.

44.

Radford PD, Derbyshire LF, Shalhoub J, Fitzgerald JEF. Publication of surgeon specific outcome data: a review of implementation, controversies and the potential impact on surgical training. Int J Surg. 2015;13:211–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.049.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Ferraris VA, Ferraris SP, Wehner PS, Setser ER. The dangers of gathering data: surgeon-specific outcomes revisited. Int J Angiol. 2011;20:223–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Dranove D, Kessler D, McClellan M, Satterthwaite M. Is more information better? The effects of “report cards” on health care providers. J Polit Econ. 2003;111:555–88.CrossRef

Title: Improvement Science in Anaesthesia
Authors: Duncan T. Wagstaff
James Bedford
S. Ramani Moonesinghe
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Anesthesiology Reports / Issue 4/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2167-6275
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-017-0234-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Improvement Science in Anaesthesia

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Cardiac Output Monitoring: Validation Studies–how Results Should be Presented

Intraoperative Noninvasive Cardiovascular and Brain Monitoring in the Elderly

Residual Neuromuscular Blockade and Perioperative Outcomes in the Elderly

Prehabilitation and Nutritional Support to Improve Perioperative Outcomes

Neuronal Connectivity, General Anesthesia, and the Elderly

Fluid Management in the Elderly