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

Health-related quality of life: implications for critical care interventional studies and why we need to collaborate with patients.

Purpose of review: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important patient-reported outcome measure following critical illness. ‘Validated’ and professionally endorsed generic measures are widely used to evaluate critical care intervention and guide practice, policy and research. Although recognizing that they are ‘here to stay’, leading QoL researchers are beginning to question their ‘fitness for purpose’. It is therefore timely to review critiques of their limitations in the wider healthcare and social science literatures and to examine the implications for critical care research including, in particular, emerging interventional studies in which HRQoL is the primary outcome of interest. Recent findings: Generic HRQoL measures have provided important yet limited insights into HRQoL among survivors of critical illness. They are rarely developed or validated in collaboration with patients and cannot therefore be assumed to reflect their experiences and perspectives. Summary: Collaboration with patients is advocated in order to improve the interpretation and utility of such data. Failure to do so may result in important study effects being overlooked and the dismissal of potentially useful interventions.

Intensive care survivors’ experiences of ward-based care: Meleis’ theory of nursing transitions and role development among critical care outreach services.

Aims and objectives. To explore the psychosocial needs of patients discharged from intensive care, the extent to which they are captured using existing theory on transitions in care and the potential role development of critical care outreach, follow-up and liaison services. Background. Intensive care patients are at an increased risk of adverse events, deterioration or death following ward transfer. Nurse-led critical care outreach, follow-up or liaison services have been adopted internationally to prevent these potentially avoidable sequelae. The need to provide patients with psychosocial support during the transition to ward-based care has also been identified, but the evidence base for role development is currently limited. Design and methods. Twenty participants were invited to discuss their experiences of ward-based care as part of a broader study on recovery following prolonged critical illness. Psychosocial distress was a prominent feature of their accounts, prompting secondary data analysis using Meleis et al.’s mid-range theory on experiencing transitions. Results. Participants described a sense of disconnection in relation to profound debilitation and dependency and were often distressed by a perceived lack of understanding, indifference or insensitivity among ward staff to their basic care needs. Negotiating the transition between dependence and independence was identified as a significant source of distress following ward transfer. Participants varied in the extent to which they were able to express their needs and negotiate recovery within professionally mediated boundaries. Conclusion. These data provide new insights into the putative origins of the psychosocial distress that patients experience following ward transfer. Relevance to clinical practice. Meleis et al.’s work has resonance in terms of explicating intensive care patients’ experiences of psychosocial distress throughout the transition to general ward–based care, such that the future role development of critical care outreach, follow-up and liaison services may be more theoretically informed.

Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT).

Objective To develop a structurally valid and reliable, yet brief measure of patient experience of hospital quality of care, the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). Also, to examine aspects of utility of CEFIT. Background Measuring quality improvement at the clinical interface has become a necessary component of healthcare measurement and improvement plans, but the effectiveness of measuring such complexity is dependent on the purpose and utility of the instrument used. Methods CEFIT was designed from a theoretical model, derived from the literature and a content validity index (CVI) procedure. A telephone population surveyed 802 eligible participants (healthcare experience within the previous 12 months) to complete CEFIT. Internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach's α. Principal component analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure and determine structural validity. Quality criteria were applied to judge aspects of utility. Results CVI found a statistically significant proportion of agreement between patient and practitioner experts for CEFIT construction. 802 eligible participants answered the CEFIT questions. Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency indicated high reliability (0.78). Interitem (question) total correlations (0.28–0.73) were used to establish the final instrument. Principal component analysis identified one factor accounting for 57.3% variance. Quality critique rated CEFIT as fair for content validity, excellent for structural validity, good for cost, poor for acceptability and good for educational impact. Conclusions CEFIT offers a brief yet structurally sound measure of patient experience of quality of care. The briefness of the 5-item instrument arguably offers high utility in practice. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of CEFIT to provide a robust basis for feedback to local clinical teams and drive quality improvement in the provision of care experience for patients. Further development of aspects of utility is also required.