A cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention in Brazilian intensive care units: study protocol

Implementation Science

The CHECKLIST-ICU Investigatorsthe BRICNet¹  Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti¹ 

[1] Research Institute - Hospital do Coração (IEP– HCor), Rua Abílio Soares 250, 12th floor, SP, CEP: 04005-000 - São Paulo, Brazil

关键词: Quality improvement;    Outcome and process assessment (health care);    Hospital mortality;    Checklist;    Intensive care units;    Critical illness;    Intensive care;   

Others  :  1139387
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0190-0

 received in 2014-11-18, accepted in 2014-12-09,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The uptake of evidence-based therapies in the intensive care environment is suboptimal, particularly in limited-resource countries. Checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts may improve compliance with best practice processes of care and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of checklists is unreliable and inconclusive, and the mechanisms are poorly understood. We aim to evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including the use of a checklist and the definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts, can improve the in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Our secondary objectives are to assess the effects of the study intervention on specific processes of care, clinical outcomes, and the safety culture and to determine which factors (the processes of care and/or safety culture) mediate the effect of the study intervention on mortality.

Methods/design

This is a cluster randomized trial involving 118 ICUs in Brazil conducted in two phases. In the observational preparatory phase, we collect baseline data on processes of care and clinical outcomes from 60 consecutive patients with lengths of ICU stay longer than 48 h and apply the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to 75% or more of the health care staff in each ICU. In the randomized phase, we assign ICUs to the experimental or control arm and repeat data collection. Experimental arm ICUs receive the multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including a checklist and definition of daily care goals during daily multidisciplinary rounds, clinician prompting, and feedback on rates of adherence to selected care processes. Control arm ICUs maintain usual care. The primary outcome is in-hospital mortality, truncated at 60 days. Secondary outcomes include the rates of adherence to appropriate care processes, rates of other clinical outcomes, and scores on the SAQ domains. Analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle, and the primary outcome is analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression.

Discussion

This is a large scale, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including checklists applied during the multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompting, can improve the adoption of proven therapies and decrease the mortality of critically ill patients. If this study finds that the intervention reduces mortality, it may be widely adopted in intensive care units, even those in limited-resource settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01785966 webcite

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Cavalcanti et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pronovost PJ, Rinke ML, Emery K, Dennison C, Blackledge C, Berenholtz SM: Interventions to reduce mortality among patients treated in intensive care units. J Crit Care 2004, 19:158-64.
• [2]Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Muriel A, Ferguson ND, Penuelas O, Abraira V, et al.: Evolution of mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013, 188:220-30.
• [3]Levy MM, Artigas A, Phillips GS, Rhodes A, Beale R, Osborn T, et al.: Outcomes of the surviving sepsis campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2012, 12:919-24.
• [4]Dunser MW, Bataar O, Tsenddorj G, Lundeg G, Torgersen C, Romand JA, et al.: Differences in critical care practice between an industrialized and a developing country. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2008, 120:600-7.
• [5]Conde KA, Silva E, Silva CO, Ferreira E, Freitas FG, Castro I, et al.: Differences in sepsis treatment and outcomes between public and private hospitals in Brazil: a multicenter observational study. PLoS One 2013, 8:e64790.
• [6]Scott KW, Jha AK: Putting quality on the global health agenda. N Engl J Med 2014, 371:3-5.
• [7]Hales BM, Pronovost PJ: The checklist–a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care 2006, 21:231-5.
• [8]Gawande AA: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Metropolitan Books, New York; 2010.
• [9]Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, et al.: A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009, 360:491-9.
• [10]Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al.: An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:2725-32.
• [11]Vincent JL: Give your patient a fast hug (at least) once a day. Crit Care Med 2005, 33:1225-9.
• [12]Pronovost P, Berenholtz S, Dorman T, Lipsett PA, Simmonds T, Haraden C: Improving communication in the ICU using daily goals. J Crit Care 2003, 18:71-5.
• [13]Weiss CH, Moazed F, McEvoy CA, Singer BD, Szleifer I, Amaral LA, et al.: Prompting physicians to address a daily checklist and process of care and clinical outcomes: a single-site study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011, 184:680-6.
• [14]Urbach DR, Govindarajan A, Saskin R, Wilton AS, Baxter NN: Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada. N Engl J Med 2014, 370:1029-38.
• [15]Ko HC, Turner TJ, Finnigan MA: Systematic review of safety checklists for use by medical care teams in acute hospital settings–limited evidence of effectiveness. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:211. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Marshall D: Crew Resource Management: From Patient Safety to High Reliability. Safer Healthcare Partners, LLC, Denver, USA; 2009.
• [17]Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al.: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004, 328:1490.
• [18]Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al.: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:401-6.
• [19]Price R, MacLennan G, Glen J: Selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine for prevention of death in general intensive care: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014, 348:g2197.
• [20]Klompas M, Speck K, Howell MD, Greene LR, Berenholtz SM: Reappraisal of routine oral care with chlorhexidine gluconate for patients receiving mechanical ventilation: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2014, 174:751-61.
• [21]Dhaliwal R, Cahill N, Lemieux M, Heyland DK: The Canadian critical care nutrition guidelines in 2013: an update on current recommendations and implementation strategies. Nutr Clin Pract 2014, 29:29-43.
• [22]Carvalho REFL: Adaptação transcultural do Safety Attitudes Questionnaire para o Brasil - Questionário de Atitudes de Segurança. PhD Thesis. Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil; 2011.
• [23]Sexton JB, Helmreich RL, Neilands TB, Rowan K, Vella K, Boyden J, et al.: The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Colla JB, Bracken AC, Kinney LM, Weeks WB: Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14:364-6.
• [25]Pronovost P, Sexton B: Assessing safety culture: guidelines and recommendations. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14:231-3.
• [26]Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA: CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008, 36:309-32.
• [27]Ventilator-associated event protocol. [http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/acute-care-hospital/vae/index.html]
• [28]Hayes RJ, Bennett S: Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 1999, 28:319-26.
• [29]Stroup WW: Generalized Linear Mixed Models: Modern Concepts, Methods and Applications. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Boca Raton, FL; 2013.
• [30]Hayes RJ, Moulton LH: Cluster Randomised Trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL; 2009.
• [31]Preacher KJ, Hayes AF: Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 2008, 40:879-91.
• [32]Giraudeau B, Caille A, Le GA, Ravaud P: Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review. PLoS One 2012, 7:e40436.
• [33]Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York; 2010.
• [34]Scales DC, Dainty K, Hales B, Pinto R, Fowler RA, Adhikari NK, et al.: A multifaceted intervention for quality improvement in a network of intensive care units: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA 2011, 305:363-72.