Dataset Information

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Rates of damage control laparotomy (DCL) vary widely and consensus on appropriate indications does not exist. The purposes of this multicenter quality improvement (QI) project were to decrease the use of DCL and to identify indications where consensus exists. METHODS:In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, QI project utilizing a single QI tool: audit and feedback. Each emergent trauma laparotomy was prospectively reviewed. Damage control laparotomy cases were adjudicated based on the majority vote of faculty members as being appropriate or potentially, in retrospect, safe for definitive laparotomy. The rate of DCL for 2 years prior (2014 and 2015) was retrospectively collected and used as a control. To account for secular trends of DCL, interrupted time series was used to effectiveness of the QI interventions. RESULTS:Eight hundred seventy-two emergent laparotomies were performed: 73% definitive laparotomies, 24% DCLs, and 3% intraoperative deaths. Of the 209 DCLs, 162 (78%) were voted appropriate, and 47 (22%) were voted to have been potentially safe for definitive laparotomy. Rates of DCL ranged from 16% to 34%. Common indications for DCL for which consensus existed were packing (103/115 [90%] appropriate) and hemodynamic instability (33/40 [83%] appropriate). The only common indication for which primary closure at the initial laparotomy could have been safely performed was avoiding a planned second look (16/32 [50%] appropriate). CONCLUSION:A single faceted QI intervention failed to decrease the rate of DCL at six US Level I trauma centers. However, opportunities for improvement in safely decreasing the rate of DCL were present. Second look laparotomy appears to lack consensus as an indication for DCL and may represent a target to decrease the rate of DCL after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Epidemiological study with one negative criterion, level III.

SUBMITTER: Harvin JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6771434 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project.

Harvin John A JA Sharpe John P JP Croce Martin A MA Goodman Michael D MD Pritts Timothy A TA Dauer Elizabeth D ED Moran Benjamin J BJ Rodriguez Rachel D RD Zarzaur Ben L BL Kreiner Laura A LA Claridge Jeffrey A JA Holcomb John B JB

The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 20190701 1

<h4>Background</h4>Rates of damage control laparotomy (DCL) vary widely and consensus on appropriate indications does not exist. The purposes of this multicenter quality improvement (QI) project were to decrease the use of DCL and to identify indications where consensus exists.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, QI project utilizing a single QI tool: audit and feedback. Each emergent trauma laparotomy was prospectively reviewed. Damage control laparotomy ...[more]

PMID: 31260424

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.Methods680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB.Results390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified.ConclusionsAlthough these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.

Project description:Blood tests are a seemingly basic investigation, but are often a vital part of directing patient management. Despite the importance of this everyday process, we indentified the potential for improvement of the current phlebotomy service in our hospital, as both junior doctors and phlebotomists reported a lack of communication and standardised practice across the wards. Resulting delays in obtaining blood test results can impact detrimentally on patient safety and management. We designed a survey which highlighted inefficient handovers and discrepancies between wards as driving factors behind this. We therefore aimed to improve communication between phlebotomists and doctors, as well as the overall organisation of the service. This took the form of the "Phlebotomy Box," a box file system offering a set location for blood stickers to be situated. The box concept was optimised on a series of medical and surgical wards, incorporating multidisciplinary feedback from relevant teams. We measured how many untaken bloods were handed over to medical staff continuously, both pre- and post implementation of the phlebotomy box. Our baseline ward demonstrated poor handover rates of untaken bloods, ranging from 0% to 40%. This increased to a consistent 100% following introduction of the Phlebotomy Box and ongoing staff education. Once optimised, the box was trialled on a further two medical wards and one surgical ward, achieving 100% handover from an initial 0% to 67%. Quantitative improvement was also reflected qualitatively in widespread staff surveys, with overwhelmingly positive support and acceptance. In summary, the Phlebotomy Box innovation has led to 100% of untaken bloods being effectively handed over. We have demonstrated a significant improvement in communication and efficiency within the phlebotomy service, with tangible benefits to patient care, as minimising time lags can prevent delays in clinical decisions. The phlebotomy box represents a simplistic, sustainable intervention that could be easily replicated in other Trusts.

Project description:In recent years medical handover has been identified as an increasingly important area for hospitals to improve upon, in light of the changes in shift patterns for doctors. Significant changes to weekday handover had recently been successfully introduced at Broomfield hospital. Weekend handover remained a concern, with an electronic and paper system being used simultaneously. Our objectives were to introduce a new electronic handover system for weekend handover at Broomfield Hospital and improve the organisation of the weekend handover meeting to promote patient safety. Doctors involved in weekend handover were surveyed using a questionnaire, to establish insufficiencies in the weekend handover process; where both the electronic ExtraMed system and paper were being used inconsistently. A new weekend handover system was introduced together with a new user-friendly electronic handover database, addressing the identified difficulties in the current system. These changes met the medical handover guidelines set by the Royal College of Physicians. Three months after the launch of the new system, doctors were re-surveyed using a modified questionnaire to assess the impact our changes had made. Before changes were implemented only 12% of doctors surveyed used the electronic system for weekend. Eighty-nine percent found sorting through jobs time consuming and 67% were handed jobs to them meant for a different grade of doctor. Only 41% were aware who to hand weekend discharges to. Subjective assessment of safety was 3.18 out of 5. The electronic system was felt to be time consuming and complicated. After execution of the new weekend handover process, 100% of doctors reported using the electronic system for weekend handover. Only 47% of doctors felt sorting through jobs was time consuming and 89% of doctors were aware who to handover weekend discharges to. Subjective assessment of the safety of weekend handover improved to 3.84 out of 5. Informal interviews on the ward revealed a high degree of satisfaction with the new weekend handover system. In conclusion we found that a structured, well organised weekend handover meeting together with an effective electronic handover system improves the quality of medical weekend handover.

Dataset Information

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project.

Publications

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets