Person-centered endoscopy safety checklist: Development, implementation, and evaluation

[Rethinking Endoscopy: Strategies from Aviation and their Transfer to Medicine - An Overview]

The demands on modern endoscopy have grown rapidly in various areas in recent decades. These include challenges for the endoscopy team due to more demanding interventional procedures, but also the rapidly changing conditions that today's working reality entails. In order to continue to meet the necessary safety and quality standards, it can help to look at similarly complex areas such as civil aviation to find inspiration for effective concepts in endoscopy.Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Threat and Error Management (TEM) are important concepts from civil aviation that currently make aviation the safest mode of transportation in the world. Elements such as communication, teamwork, situational awareness, decision-making and an open error culture can also be used in medicine. Some of these have already been successfully transferred to acute medical areas by using CRM-based training and general or specific checklists. In order to also benefit as much as possible from the findings in endoscopy, workshops tailored to the individual requirements of the respective endoscopy unit are available, in which measures can be developed in collaboration with professional CRM trainers. Examples of this would be a standardized communication guideline for endoscopic procedures, a pre-interventional safety checklist or a TEM-based dialogical team time-out. After implementation, regular evaluation and further development of the measures are essential for long-term success.Elements transferred from civil aviation have the potential to promote communication, situation-aware teamwork, structured decision-making and an open error culture in endoscopic teams and thus contribute to safe and high-quality interventions.

Red flags for clinical suspicion of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA)

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), is a rare ANCA-associated systemic vasculitis. Its overlapping features with other vasculitic or eosinophilic diseases, and the wide and heterogeneous range of clinical manifestations, often result in a delay to diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify red flags that raise a suspicion of EGPA to prompt diagnostic testing and to present an evidence-based clinical checklist tool for use in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and expert consensus to identify a list of red flags based on clinical judgement. GRADE applied to generate a strength of recommendation for each red flag and to develop a checklist tool.

RESULTS

86 studies were included. 40 red flags were identified as relevant to raise a suspicion of EGPA and assessed by the experts as being clinically significant. Experts agreed that a diagnosis of EGPA should be considered in a patient aged ≥6 years with a blood eosinophil level >1000 cells/µL if untreated and >500 cells/µL if previously treated with any medication likely to have altered the blood eosinophil count. The presence of asthma and/or nasal polyposis should reinforce a suspicion of EGPA. Red flags of asthma, lung infiltrates, pericarditis, cardiomyopathy, polyneuropathy, biopsy with inflammatory eosinophilic infiltrates, palpable purpura, digital ischaemia and ANCA positivity, usually anti-myeloperoxidase, among others, were identified.

CONCLUSION

The identification of a comprehensive set of red flags could be used to raise a suspicion of EGPA in patients with eosinophilia, providing clinicians with an evidence-based checklist tool that can be integrated into their practice.

Behavioral sciences applied to acute care teams: a research agenda for the years ahead by a European research network

BACKGROUND

Multi-disciplinary behavioral research on acute care teams has focused on understanding how teams work and on identifying behaviors characteristic of efficient and effective team performance. We aimed to define important knowledge gaps and establish a research agenda for the years ahead of prioritized research questions in this field of applied health research.

METHODS

In the first step, high-priority research questions were generated by a small highly specialized group of 29 experts in the field, recruited from the multinational and multidisciplinary "Behavioral Sciences applied to Acute care teams and Surgery (BSAS)" research network - a cross-European, interdisciplinary network of researchers from social sciences as well as from the medical field committed to understanding the role of behavioral sciences in the context of acute care teams. A consolidated list of 59 research questions was established. In the second step, 19 experts attending the 2020 BSAS annual conference quantitatively rated the importance of each research question based on four criteria - usefulness, answerability, effectiveness, and translation into practice. In the third step, during half a day of the BSAS conference, the same group of 19 experts discussed the prioritization of the research questions in three online focus group meetings and established recommendations.

RESULTS

Research priorities identified were categorized into six topics: (1) interventions to improve team process; (2) dealing with and implementing new technologies; (3) understanding and measuring team processes; (4) organizational aspects impacting teamwork; (5) training and health professions education; and (6) organizational and patient safety culture in the healthcare domain. Experts rated the first three topics as particularly relevant in terms of research priorities; the focus groups identified specific research needs within each topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on research priorities within the BSAS community and the broader field of applied health sciences identified through this work, we advocate for the prioritization for funding in these areas.

Implementation of a Customized Safety Checklist in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the Importance of Team Time Out-A Dual-Center Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: Checking and correctly preparing the patient for endoscopic procedures is a mandatory step for the safety and quality of the interventions. The aim of this paper is to emphasize the importance and necessity of a "team time out" as well as the implementation of a customized "checklist" before the actual procedure. Material and Methods: We developed and implemented a checklist for the safe conduct of endoscopies and for the entire team to thoroughly know about the patient's medical history. The subjects of this study were 15 physicians and 8 endoscopy nurses who performed overall 572 consecutive GI endoscopic procedures during the study period. Results: This is a prospective pilot study performed in the endoscopy unit of two tertiary referral medical centers. We customized a safety checklist that includes the steps to be followed before, during and after the examination. It brings together the whole team participating in the procedure in order to check the key points during the following three vital phases: before the patient falls asleep, before the endoscope is inserted and before the team leaves the examination room. The perception of team communication and teamwork was improved after the introduction of the checklist. The checklist completion rates, identity verification rates of patients by the endoscopist, adequate histological labeling management and explicit recording of follow-up recommendations are some of the parameters that improved post-intervention. Conclusions: Using a checklist and adapting it to local conditions is a high-level recommendation of the Romanian Ministry of Health. In a medical world where safety and quality are essential, a checklist could prevent medical errors, and team time out can ensure high-quality endoscopy, enhance teamwork and offer patients confidence in the medical team.

Improving Clinical Documentation Compliance Pre-Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures Through the Use of an Endoscopy Checklist

Production pressure in endoscopy units, to avoid procedural delays, can lead to documentation gaps that pose a patient safety risk. Fast-paced, high-volume endoscopy units within a 673-bed academic medical center, incomplete and illegible documentation were identified during a 2018 Joint Commission survey. Pre-procedure safety checklists help ensure accurate clinical handovers. Checklists promote team communication that includes the patient to have complete and relevant information to perform a safe procedure and speak up to identify discrepancies. An endoscopy-specific safety checklist was used by the procedural team immediately pre-procedure. This quality improvement project used Plan Do Study Act cycles to incorporate changes suggested by users. Chart audits were conducted pre- and post-pilot. The results showed significant improvements in physician documentation completeness and legibility, suggesting the checklist prompted clarification of documentation and communication between the nurse and the physician. Nursing assessment saw a 27.1% improvement, suggesting clarification of clinical handover between the admitting and procedural nurses. Improved communication was perceived by staff. This project showed how a standardized tool to promote team communication and clarification of discrepancies pre-procedure can contribute to prevention of errors.

Using checklists to improve care in the nonoperating room environment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the number and complexity of cases performed in the nonoperating room environment continue to increase to a higher share of all anesthetic procedures, checklists are needed to ensure staff and patient safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

Providing anesthesia care in the nonoperating room environment poses specific challenges. Closed claims data base analysis shows a higher morbidity and mortality in this setting. This is driven by the location-related challenges, and critical patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures, as well as a higher percentage of emergency and after-hours procedures. Although adequate case preparation and maintaining the same standard of care as in the main operating room, establishing protocols and checklists for procedures in nonoperating room locations has emerged as a sound strategy in improving care and safety.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia in the nonoperating room environment is becoming an increasing share of total anesthesia cases. Establishing protocols and implementing site-specific checklists is emerging as a strategy in improving care in the environment of nonoperating room.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COAN/A89 .

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

A Scoping Review of Strategies Used to Implement the Surgical Safety Checklist

In 2007, the World Health Organization initiated the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) as part of an initiative to improve patient outcomes. After publication of the SSC, perioperative nurses identified challenges with implementing it and questioned its effectiveness. We desired to summarize the state of the science on the effectiveness of strategies that perioperative personnel have used to implement and assess the SSC; therefore, we conducted a scoping review. We searched several databases and identified 28 articles that described the three key stages of SSC implementation (ie, before, during, and after). Half of the identified articles addressed intervention strategies and most articles provided strategies for SSC implementation. The literature also indicated that effective implementation occurred when there was adequate planning. Perioperative leaders should work with nurses when implementing the SSC and monitor its use after implementation to verify compliance and help prevent negative patient outcomes.

Checklist feasibility and impact in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background and study aim  Checklists prevent errors and have a positive impact on patient morbidity and mortality in surgical settings. Despite increasing use of checklists in gastrointestinal endoscopy units across many countries, a summary of cumulated experience is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the feasibility of successful checklist implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy units and summarise the evidence of its impact on the commitment in safety culture. Methods  A comprehensive literature search was performed identifying the use of a checklist or time-out in endoscopy units from 1978 to January 2020 using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases, with search terms related to checklist and endoscopy. We summarised overall adherence to checklists from included studies through a narrative synthesis, characterizing barriers and facilitators according to nurse and physician perspectives, while also summarizing safety endpoints. Results  The seven studies selected from 673 screened citations were highly heterogeneous in terms of methodology, context, and outcomes. Across five of these, checklist adherence rates post-intervention varied for both nurses (84 % to 96 %) and physicians (66 % to 95 %). Various facilitators (education, continued reassessment) and barriers (lack of safety culture, checklist completion time) were identified. Most studies did not report associations between checklist implementation and clinical outcomes, except for better team communication. Conclusion  Implementation of a gastrointestinal endoscopy checklist is feasible, with an understanding of relevant barriers and facilitators. Apart from a significant increase in the perception of team communication, evidence for a measurable impact attributable to gastrointestinal checklist implementation on endoscopic processes and safety outcomes is limited and warrants further study.

Patient participation in gastrointestinal endoscopy - From patients' perspectives

Background

Patient participation is associated with satisfaction and improved health‐related outcomes. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient participation is an underexplored area.

Objective

To gain understanding on patients' experiences, attitudes and preferences concerning patient participation in the endoscopy pathway.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews with endoscopy patients (n = 17, female n = 8, male n = 9, ages 19‐80 years) were performed. Interview transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Participants were recruited by purposive sampling from an endoscopy unit in a Swedish university hospital. Inclusion:≥ 18 years, fluency in Swedish and recent experience of endoscopy at the unit.

Results

Five generic categories emerged, two within the area of the patient's role, which was described as active or passive/included or excluded. Another three generic categories related to factors, critical to active participation, including organizational aspects, impressions of staff and individual circumstances were identified. In this context, patient participation described in the interviews was on a low to basic level, although sometimes reaching a higher level when staff ‘invited’ patients in decision making.

Discussion

This study contributes to the understanding of patient participation in endoscopy. Patients are in an inferior position and need support from the staff for an active role in their care. Although there were variations on the perceived importance of different factors, a heavy responsibility lies on the endoscopy staff to acknowledge the patients' individual needs and to facilitate patient participation.

Conclusions

Endoscopy staff has a key role in supporting patient participation. In endoscopy settings, patient participation is vulnerable to multiple factors.

Interventions to improve team effectiveness within health care: a systematic review of the past decade

BACKGROUND

A high variety of team interventions aims to improve team performance outcomes. In 2008, we conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of the scientific studies focused on these interventions. However, over the past decade, the literature on team interventions has rapidly evolved. An updated overview is therefore required, and it will focus on all possible team interventions without restrictions to a type of intervention, setting, or research design.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature from the past decade on interventions with the goal of improving team effectiveness within healthcare organizations and identify the "evidence base" levels of the research.

METHODS

Seven major databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published between 2008 and July 2018. Of the original search yield of 6025 studies, 297 studies met the inclusion criteria according to three independent authors and were subsequently included for analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale was used to assess the level of empirical evidence.

RESULTS

Three types of interventions were distinguished: (1) Training, which is sub-divided into training that is based on predefined principles (i.e. CRM: crew resource management and TeamSTEPPS: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), on a specific method (i.e. simulation), or on general team training. (2) Tools covers tools that structure (i.e. SBAR: Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation, (de)briefing checklists, and rounds), facilitate (through communication technology), or trigger (through monitoring and feedback) teamwork. (3) Organizational (re)design is about (re)designing structures to stimulate team processes and team functioning. (4) A programme is a combination of the previous types. The majority of studies evaluated a training focused on the (acute) hospital care setting. Most of the evaluated interventions focused on improving non-technical skills and provided evidence of improvements.

CONCLUSION

Over the last decade, the number of studies on team interventions has increased exponentially. At the same time, research tends to focus on certain interventions, settings, and/or outcomes. Principle-based training (i.e. CRM and TeamSTEPPS) and simulation-based training seem to provide the greatest opportunities for reaching the improvement goals in team functioning.

Improving patient safety in the endoscopy unit: utilization of remote video auditing to improve time-out compliance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient and procedure verification, or the time-out process (TOP), is considered one of the most vital components of patient safety. It has long been a focus of intervention in the surgical community and recently was incorporated into the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for safety in the GI endoscopy unit. The TOP has had limited attention in the endoscopy literature but remains an area for improvement in clinical endoscopy practice. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and improve TOP compliance rates in our endoscopy unit using remote video auditing (RVA).

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, pilot initiative in an endoscopy unit at a tertiary care academic medical center. Video cameras with offsite monitoring were installed in each procedure room in our endoscopy suite in November 2016. Baseline TOP compliance rates were audited with RVA over a 2-month period. A multidisciplinary quality improvement team reviewed the data, identified barriers to the TOP, and implemented actionable items in January 2017. TOP compliance rates were again monitored via RVA, and data were collected through October 2018. Pre- and postintervention TOP compliance rates were compared.

RESULTS

Over the baseline period, 692 procedures were audited and TOP compliance documented. Baseline TOP compliance rate was 69.6%. Identifiable barriers to TOP compliance included a lack of designated team member to lead TOP, inconsistent documentation of TOP, irrelevant safety checklist items not applicable to endoscopic procedures, and lack of patient safety culture. Actionable items implemented in response to these barriers included designation of a TOP leader, visual indication of initiation of TOP, creation of a concise endoscopy-specific safety checklist, and formal notification/education of the entire endoscopy team. Postintervention TOP compliance rates were then audited from January 2017 to October 2018 and included 12,008 procedures. The mean TOP compliance rate significantly improved from baseline (95.3% vs 69.6%; 95% confidence interval, 22.4-29.3; P < .0001). Additionally, the improvement was maintained throughout the entire postintervention observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

TOP compliance rates significantly improved in our endoscopy unit through the use of RVA and implementation of 4 actionable items. Future studies should evaluate the reproducibility of this method in other endoscopy units.