Implementing the ABCDEF Bundle: Top 8 Questions Asked During the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna L. Stollings ◽  
John W. Devlin ◽  
Brenda T. Pun ◽  
Kathleen A. Puntillo ◽  
Tamra Kelly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Early Mobility ◽  
Interprofessional Teamwork ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Spontaneous Breathing Trials ◽  
Family Engagement And Empowerment ◽  
Abcdef Bundle

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

Common Challenges to Effective ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The ICU Liberation Campaign Experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele C. Balas ◽  
Brenda T. Pun ◽  
Chris Pasero ◽  
Heidi J. Engel ◽  
Christiane Perme ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Collaborative Teams ◽  
Everyday Clinical Practice ◽  
Early Mobility ◽  
Spontaneous Breathing Trials ◽  
Family Engagement And Empowerment ◽  
Abcdef Bundle

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers.

Effects of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative on ABCDEF Bundle Implementation

2022 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-64
Author(s):  
Michele C. Balas ◽  
Alai Tan ◽  
Brenda T. Pun ◽  
E. Wesley Ely ◽  
Shannon S. Carson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Family Engagement ◽  
Baseline Period ◽  
Interrupted Time Series Analysis ◽  
Quality Improvement Collaborative ◽  
Early Mobility ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Abcdef Bundle

Background The ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain and Delirium; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia/sedation; Early mobility; and Family engagement) improves intensive care unit outcomes, but adoption into practice is poor. Objective To assess the effect of quality improvement collaborative participation on ABCDEF bundle performance. Methods This interrupted time series analysis included 20 months of bundle performance data from 15 226 adults admitted to 68 US intensive care units. Segmented regression models were used to quantify complete and individual bundle element performance changes over time and compare performance patterns before (6 months) and after (14 months) collaborative initiation. Results Complete bundle performance rates were very low at baseline (<4%) but increased to 12% by the end. Complete bundle performance increased by 2 percentage points (SE, 0.9; P = .06) immediately after collaborative initiation. Each subsequent month was associated with an increase of 0.6 percentage points (SE, 0.2; P = .04). Performance rates increased significantly immediately after initiation for pain assessment (7.6% [SE, 2.0%], P = .002), sedation assessment (9.1% [SE, 3.7%], P = .02), and family engagement (7.8% [SE, 3%], P = .02) and then increased monthly at the same speed as the trend in the baseline period. Performance rates were lowest for spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and early mobility. Conclusions Quality improvement collaborative participation resulted in clinically meaningful, but small and variable, improvements in bundle performance. Opportunities remain to improve adoption of sedation, mechanical ventilation, and early mobility practices.

Adaptation in Dissemination and Implementation Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana A. Baumann ◽  
Leopoldo J. Cabassa ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Science ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

This chapter focuses on adaptations in the context of dissemination and implementation research and practice. Consistent with the existing literature, the authors recommend that adaptations be proactively and iteratively determined, strongly informed by a variety of stakeholders, and that efforts be made to carefully describe and document the nature of the adaptations and evaluate their impact on desired service, health, and implementation outcomes. While this chapter focuses on adaptations to interventions and the context of practice, the authors also note that adaptations may need to be made to implementation strategies. Following the call by Proctor and colleagues for further precision in defining and operationalizing implementation strategies, and based on evidence that scholars are not necessarily reporting what and how they are adapting the interventions, scholars are urged to define and evaluate the adaptations they are making not only to the interventions and context of practice but also to the implementation strategies.

The Role of Economic Evaluation in Dissemination and Implementation Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Raghavan
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Economic Point ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Public Health Organizations ◽  
Quality Health ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

This chapter presents an overview of how D&I research can be evaluated from an economic point of view. Dissemination and implementation imposes costs upon knowledge purveyors, provider organizations, public health organizations, and payers (including governments). However, whether these added costs will result in improved service delivery and, perhaps more importantly, client outcomes and improvements in population health remain as open questions. If emerging studies reveal that defined implementation strategies are more cost effective than “usual” implementation, then policymakers and service providers will need to resource these added costs of implementation in order to assure the success and sustainability of high-quality health services over the long term.

scholarly journals Interoperability frameworks linking mHealth applications to electronic record systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kagiso Ndlovu ◽  
Maurice Mars ◽  
Richard E. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Electronic Record ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background mHealth presents innovative approaches to enhance primary healthcare delivery in developing countries like Botswana. The impact of mHealth solutions can be improved if they are interoperable with eRecord systems such as electronic health records, electronic medical records and patient health records. eHealth interoperability frameworks exist but their availability and utility for linking mHealth solutions to eRecords in developing world settings like Botswana is unknown. The recently adopted eHealth Strategy for Botswana recognises interoperability as an issue and mHealth as a potential solution for some healthcare needs, but does not address linking the two. Aim This study reviewed published reviews of eHealth interoperability frameworks for linking mHealth solutions with eRecords, and assessed their relevance to informing interoperability efforts with respect to Botswana’s eHealth Strategy. Methods A structured literature review and analysis of published reviews of eHealth interoperability frameworks was performed to determine if any are relevant to linking mHealth with eRecords. The Botswanan eHealth Strategy was reviewed. Results Four articles presented and reviewed eHealth interoperability frameworks that support linking of mHealth interventions to eRecords and associated implementation strategies. While the frameworks were developed for specific circumstances and therefore were based upon varying assumptions and perspectives, they entailed aspects that are relevant and could be drawn upon when developing an mHealth interoperability framework for Botswana. Common emerging themes of infrastructure, interoperability standards, data security and usability were identified and discussed; all of which are important in the developing world context such as in Botswana. The Botswana eHealth Strategy recognises interoperability, mHealth, and eRecords as distinct issues, but not linking of mHealth solutions with eRecords. Conclusions Delivery of healthcare is shifting from hospital-based to patient-centered primary healthcare and community-based settings, using mHealth interventions. The impact of mHealth solutions can be improved if data generated from them are converted into digital information ready for transmission and incorporation into eRecord systems. The Botswana eHealth Strategy stresses the need to have interoperable eRecords, but mHealth solutions must not be left out. Literature insight about mHealth interoperability with eRecords can inform implementation strategies for Botswana and elsewhere.

Abstract TP414: Support from a Comprehensive Stroke Center Improves Door to tPA Times at Primary Stroke Centers

Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M Fussner ◽  
Kelly Montgomery ◽  
Tinatin Gumberidze ◽  
Erin Supan
Keyword(s):  
Gap Analysis ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Measure Data ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Stroke Registry ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
System Average

Target Stroke, a national quality improvement initiative of the American Heart Association /American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) to improve the timeliness of administration of intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) to eligible stroke patients, was launched in 2010. The door-to-needle time goal is 60 minutes (mins) from hospital arrival. Earlier administration of IV t-PA is associated with greater functional recovery. Since 2009 University Hospitals Comprehensive Stroke and Cerebrovascular Center (UHCSCC) has meet quarterly with its 7 system community hospitals to share stroke core measure data, review clinical practice guidelines and address new system initiatives for the care of the stroke patient. The purpose of this project is to demonstrate how a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) can assist a primary stroke center (PSC) to improve their door to tPA treatment times. In 2010 to support the primary stroke centers, the UHCSCC developed standardized stroke education for nurses including an online course for tPA. In 2014 an additional online interactive module was created to assist nurses in programing the Alaris IV pump to improve their speed. In 2013 the quarterly system meetings started to include door to CT and door to tPA data with discussions about best practices and challenges. The AHA Target Stroke campaign recommendations and evidenced-based strategies were reviewed and a gap analysis at each hospital was completed to identify opportunities. Throughout 2012-2013 the stroke coordinator at UHCSCC led monthly conference calls with the community stroke coordinators. Since 2014 the stroke operations manager visits each community hospital monthly to work with the stroke coordinator and their teams reviewing TPA cases. Finally, a formal feedback took was developed and is sent to the PSC to provide patient outcomes and opportunities on all TPA cases that are transferred to the CSC. The AHA Get With The Guidelines stroke registry is used to monitor compliance. In 2012 the University Hospitals Health System average door to tPA in 60 mins was only 41%. January - June 2015, the system average has improved 86%. Community primary stroke centers benefit from the comprehensive stroke center interventions and support to improve door to tPA in 60 mins.

scholarly journals Exploring clinicians’ perspectives on the ‘Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury Care Bundle’ national quality improvement programme: a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e035674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Posy Bidwell ◽  
Ranee Thakar ◽  
Ipek Gurol-Urganci ◽  
James M Harris ◽  
Louise Silverton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Anal Sphincter ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Care Bundle ◽  
Quality Improvement Programme ◽  
Anal Sphincter Injury ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Improvement Programme

IntroductionObstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) can have severe debilitating consequences to women and health systems. The OASI Care Bundle quality improvement programme was introduced in 16 maternity units across England, Scotland and Wales (January 2017 to March 2018) to address increasing OASI rates.ObjectivesTo explore clinicians’ (midwives’ and obstetricians’) perspectives of the OASI Care Bundle with respect to (1) acceptability, (2) feasibility, and (3) sustainability.DesignA qualitative exploratory study using focus groups methodology.SettingA total of 16 focus groups were conducted in 16 maternity units in England, Scotland and Wales where the OASI Care Bundle was implemented. Focus groups took place approximately 3 months following initial implementation of the care bundle in each unit.ParticipantsA total of 101 clinicians participated, with an average of six per focus group. Participants volunteered to take part and compromised of 37 obstetricians and 64 midwives (including eight students). The majority were female and the mean age was 36.5 years.ResultsFour main themes emerged: ‘Implementation strategies’, ‘Opportunities to use the OASI Care Bundle’, ‘Does current practice need to change?’ and ‘Perceptions of what women want’. Midwives were more likely than obstetricians to report themes alluding to ‘what women want’ and variations in intrapartum perineal protection techniques. Both professional groups reported similar views of other themes, in particular regarding the supporting clinical evidence. Gaps were identified in clinicians’ knowledge and experience of intrapartum perineal management.ConclusionsAdoption of the OASI Care Bundle was associated with a number of cognitive and interpersonal factors, such as personal values, interprofessional working and how the intervention was launched; which both facilitated and impeded adoption. The ‘what women want’ theme has implications for maternal autonomy and needs further exploration. Our findings can be used by similar initiatives to reduce perineal trauma both nationally and internationally.Trial registration numberISCTRN 12143325; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12143325.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document