P023: Code Resus - using a quality improvement approach to improve health care provider response during resuscitations

Introduction: In order to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients requiring resuscitation (PRRs) in the emergency department (ED), health care providers (HCPs) must provide an efficient, multi-disciplinary and coordinated response. A quality improvement (QI) project was undertaken to improve HCP response to PRRs at two tertiary care hospital EDs in Toronto. Methods: We conducted a before-and-after mixed-method survey to evaluate the perception of the adequacy of HCP response and clarity of HCP role when responding to PRRs. The results were compared using the Chi-square test. Qualitative responses to the first survey were also used to inform the development of the QI project. Through interviews of key stakeholders and with continuous input from front-line ED HCPs, a multi-disciplinary team modified the ED resuscitation protocol. This included standardized pre-hospital communication form with paramedics, ED-wide overhead announcement of ‘Code Resus’, dedicated HCPs assigned to respond to PRRs, and specific duties assigned to each responder. Change initiatives were reinforced through education and posters in the ED. Six months after implementation, a second survey was conducted to evaluate the sustained effects of the intervention. Results: Baseline measures indicated that 16 of 52 (30.8%) nurses surveyed believed their role was often or always apparent to themselves and others when they attended to a PRR (on a 5-point rating scale). This proportion increased to 35 of 55 (63.6%) nurses in the post-implementation survey (p < 0.001). Regarding adequacy of the number of HCPs responding to PRRs, 17 of 39 (43.6%) physicians and 23 of 53 (43.4%) nurses surveyed thought the appropriate number of HCPs responded to PRRs; the remainder thought that there were too few or too many HCPs. In the post-implementation survey, 34 of 41 (82.9%) physicians (p < 0.001) and 36 of 56 (64.3%) nurses (p = 0.029) surveyed felt that the appropriate number of HCPs attended to PRRs. Conclusion: Using a quality improvement approach, we identified and quantified perceived deficiencies in HCP response to PRRs in the ED. Through feedback-based modifications of the ED resuscitation protocol and by engaging HCP stakeholders, change initiatives were implemented to improve HCP response. As a result, this project achieved significant and sustained improvements in HCPs’ perceived response to PRRs.