Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time

Self-management of coronary heart disease in angina patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: A mixed methods study.

After having elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients are expected to self-manage their coronary heart disease (CHD) by modifying their risk factors, adhering to medication and effectively managing any recurring angina symptoms but that may be ineffective. Objective: Explore how patients self-manage their coronary heart disease (CHD) after elective PCI and identify any factors that may infl uence that. Design and method: This mixed methods study recruited a convenience sample of patients (n=93) approximately three months after elective PCI. Quantitative data were collected using a survey and were subject to univariate, bivariate and multi-variate analysis. Qualitative data from participant interviews was analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: After PCI, 74% of participants managed their angina symptoms inappropriately. Younger participants and those with threatening perceptions of their CHD were more likely to know how to effectively manage their angina symptoms. Few patients adopted a healthier lifestyle after PCI. Qualitative analysis revealed that intentional non-adherence to some medicines was an issue. Some participants felt unsupported by healthcare providers and social networks in relation to their self-management. Participants reported strong emotional responses to CHD and this had a detrimental effect on their self-management. Few patients accessed cardiac rehabilitation.