PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2006Critical Care Medicine69 citations

Minimizing errors of omission: Behavioural rEenforcement of Heparin to Avert Venous Emboli: The BEHAVE Study*

View Full Paper
JMJ. P. McMullinLGLauren E. GriffithEMEllen McDonald

Structured PICO

Does a multiple-method guideline implementation strategy increase heparin thromboprophylaxis and reduce errors of omission in medical-surgical intensive care unit patients?

P
Population
Critically ill patients in a 15-bed medical-surgical closed intensive care unit
I
Intervention
Implementation of a thromboprophylaxis guideline using interactive multidisciplinary educational in-services, verbal reminders, computerized daily nurse recording, and graphic feedback over a 1-year period (Phase 2)
C
Comparator
Baseline period of 3 months (Phase 1) before intervention
O
Outcome
Proportion of intensive care unit patient-days of heparin thromboprophylaxis and proportion of days during which heparin thromboprophylaxis was omitted in error

A multifaceted guideline implementation strategy significantly increased heparin thromboprophylaxis and reduced errors of omission in critically ill ICU patients.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To improve patient safety by increasing heparin thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical intensive care unit patients using a multiple-method approach to evidence-based guideline development and implementation. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: Medical-surgical intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary clinicians caring for critically ill patients in a 15-bed medical-surgical closed intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS: Phase 1 was a 3-month baseline period during which we documented anticoagulation and mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Phase 2 was a 1-yr period in which we implemented a thromboprophylaxis guideline using a) interactive multidisciplinary educational in-services; b) verbal reminders to the intensive care unit team; c) computerized daily nurse recording of thromboprophylaxis; d) weekly graphic feedback to individual intensivists on guideline adherence; and e) publicly displayed graphic feedback on group performance. Phase 3 was a 3-month follow-up period 10 months later, during which we documented thromboprophylaxis. Computerized daily nurse recording of thromboprophylaxis continued in this period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were similar across phases, although patients in phase 2 had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores than patients in phases 1 and 3. The proportion (median % interquartile range) of intensive care unit patient-days of heparin thromboprophylaxis in phases 1, 2, and 3 was 60.0 (0, 100), 90.9 (50, 100), and 100.0 (60, 100), respectively (p=.01). The proportion (median % interquartile range) of days during which heparin thromboprophylaxis was omitted in error in phases 1, 2, and 3 was 20 (0, 53.8), 0 (0, 6.3), and 0 (0, 0), respectively (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: After development and implementation of an evidence-based thromboprophylaxis guideline, we found significantly more patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis. Guideline adherence was maintained 1 yr later. Further research is needed on which are the most effective strategies to implement patient safety initiatives in the intensive care unit.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

McMullin et al. (2006) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a851e6038b24859dfd69d59https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000201886.84135.cb
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper