Cargando…
How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement is a cornerstone for any verified trauma center. Conducting effective quality and performance improvement, however, remains a challenge. In this study, we sought to better explore the landscape and challenges facing the members of the Eastern Association for the Surge...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10407366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37560073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001059 |
_version_ | 1785085945841713152 |
---|---|
author | Horwitz, Daniel Dumas, Ryan Peter Cunningham, Kyle Palacio, Carlos H Margulies, Daniel R Eme, Christine Bukur, Marko |
author_facet | Horwitz, Daniel Dumas, Ryan Peter Cunningham, Kyle Palacio, Carlos H Margulies, Daniel R Eme, Christine Bukur, Marko |
author_sort | Horwitz, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Quality improvement is a cornerstone for any verified trauma center. Conducting effective quality and performance improvement, however, remains a challenge. In this study, we sought to better explore the landscape and challenges facing the members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) through a survey. METHODS: A survey was designed by the EAST Quality Patient Safety and Outcomes Committee. It was reviewed by the EAST Research and Scholarship Committee and then distributed to 2511 EAST members. The questions were designed to understand the frequency, content, and perceptions surrounding quality improvement processes. RESULTS: There were 151 respondents of the 2511 surveys sent (6.0%). The majority were trauma faculty (55%) or trauma medical directors (TMDs) (37%) at American College of Surgeons level I (62%) or II (17%) trauma centers. We found a wide variety of resources being used across hospitals with the majority of cases being identified by a TMD or attending (81%) for a multidisciplinary peer review (70.2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the quality improvement process with TMDs being more likely to describe their process as moderately or very effective compared with their peers (77.5% vs. 57.7%, p=0.026). The ‘Just Culture’ model appeared to have a positive effect on the process improvement environment, with providers less likely to report a non-conducive environment (10.9% vs. 27.6%, p=0.012) and less feelings of assigning blame (3.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.026). CONCLUSION: Case review remains an essential but challenging process. Our survey reveals a need to continue to advocate for appropriate time and resources to conduct strong quality improvement processes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10407366 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104073662023-08-09 How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey Horwitz, Daniel Dumas, Ryan Peter Cunningham, Kyle Palacio, Carlos H Margulies, Daniel R Eme, Christine Bukur, Marko Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Original Research BACKGROUND: Quality improvement is a cornerstone for any verified trauma center. Conducting effective quality and performance improvement, however, remains a challenge. In this study, we sought to better explore the landscape and challenges facing the members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) through a survey. METHODS: A survey was designed by the EAST Quality Patient Safety and Outcomes Committee. It was reviewed by the EAST Research and Scholarship Committee and then distributed to 2511 EAST members. The questions were designed to understand the frequency, content, and perceptions surrounding quality improvement processes. RESULTS: There were 151 respondents of the 2511 surveys sent (6.0%). The majority were trauma faculty (55%) or trauma medical directors (TMDs) (37%) at American College of Surgeons level I (62%) or II (17%) trauma centers. We found a wide variety of resources being used across hospitals with the majority of cases being identified by a TMD or attending (81%) for a multidisciplinary peer review (70.2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the quality improvement process with TMDs being more likely to describe their process as moderately or very effective compared with their peers (77.5% vs. 57.7%, p=0.026). The ‘Just Culture’ model appeared to have a positive effect on the process improvement environment, with providers less likely to report a non-conducive environment (10.9% vs. 27.6%, p=0.012) and less feelings of assigning blame (3.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.026). CONCLUSION: Case review remains an essential but challenging process. Our survey reveals a need to continue to advocate for appropriate time and resources to conduct strong quality improvement processes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10407366/ /pubmed/37560073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001059 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Horwitz, Daniel Dumas, Ryan Peter Cunningham, Kyle Palacio, Carlos H Margulies, Daniel R Eme, Christine Bukur, Marko How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
title | How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
title_full | How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
title_fullStr | How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
title_full_unstemmed | How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
title_short | How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
title_sort | how do we pi? results of an east quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10407366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37560073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001059 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT horwitzdaniel howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey AT dumasryanpeter howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey AT cunninghamkyle howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey AT palaciocarlosh howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey AT marguliesdanielr howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey AT emechristine howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey AT bukurmarko howdowepiresultsofaneastqualitypatientsafetyandoutcomessurvey |