1 / 35

CUSP for VAP: EVAP Project Overview

CUSP for VAP: EVAP Project Overview . Sean Berenholtz M.D., MHS Kathleen Speck, MPH August 7 th - 1pm August 8 th – 11 am . Learning Objectives. U nderstand the magnitude of preventable harm Review CUSP for VAP:EVAP program Project goals and interventions

lowell
Télécharger la présentation

CUSP for VAP: EVAP Project Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CUSP for VAP: EVAPProject Overview Sean Berenholtz M.D., MHS Kathleen Speck, MPH August 7th - 1pm August 8th – 11 am

  2. Learning Objectives • Understand the magnitude of preventable harm • Review CUSP for VAP:EVAP program • Project goals and interventions • Participation requirements and timeline • Describe steps to enroll

  3. Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI): A Preventable Epidemic Focus on 4 HAIs: • VAP, CLABSI, surgical site infections and catheter associated urinary tract infections $5 billion per year excess costs 1.7 million patients per year • 1 out of 20 patients 98,000 deaths per year • As many deaths as breast cancer and HIV/AIDS • 6th leading cause of preventable deaths 1. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=1865

  4. Impact of VAP 10-20% of ventilated patients 2 Common HAI 3 Median rate 1-4.3 per 1000 vent day 250,000 infections per year Most lethal HAI4 Mortality likely exceeds 10% 5 Up to 36,000 deaths per year Cost per episode: $23,000 2.Safdar CCM 2005, 3.Kollef Chest 2005, 4.Perencevich ICHE 2007, 5. Klevens RM , Public Health Rep. 2007

  5. CUSP for VAP: EVAP Project Overview

  6. CUSP for VAP: EVAP Project Overview NIH/NHLBI and AHRQ funding project Individual hospitals participate for 3 years, including 2 year intervention period and 1 year evaluation of sustainability Leveraging leaders in field Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, NIH/NHLBI, CDC, AHRQ, University of Pennsylvania, MHA and HAP Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  7. Who can join CUSP for VAP: EVAP? Participation in the program is available to any facility with mechanically ventilated patients in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Hospital participation will be coordinated with state hospital association or hospital engagement network (HEN). Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  8. Project Goals • To achieve significant reductions in VAP/VAE rates • To achieve significant improvements in safety culture

  9. How will we get there? Translating Evidence Into Practice (TRiP) Reducing Ventilator Associated Pneumonia Comprehensive Unit based Safety Program (CUSP) • Summarize the evidence • Identify local barriers to implementation • Measure performance • Ensure all patients get the evidence • Engage • Educate • Execute • Evaluate • HOB elevation • SAT and SBT • Oral Care with CHG • CSS-ETT • Structural measures Educate staff on science of safety Identify defects Assign executive to adopt unit Learn from one defect per quarter Implement teamwork tools Adaptive Work Technical Work 6. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/armstrong_institute

  10. Successful Efforts to Reduce Preventable Harm Michigan Keystone ICU program Reductions in central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI)7,8 Reductions in ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP) 9 National On the CUSP: Stop BSI program 10 7. Pronovost ,N Engl J Med 2006;355:2725-32. 8. Pronovost, N . BMJ 2010;340:c309. 9. Berenholtz ,Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(4): 305-314. 10. www.onthecuspstophai.org

  11. Percent of Units with Zero CLABSIs and Achieving Project Goal (<1/1000 CL days) 11. www.onthecuspstophai.org

  12. Lessons Learned Informed by science Led by clinicians and supported by management Guided by measures Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  13. Advancing the Science • Development of a ‘VAP Prevention’ bundle • Updating the ‘Ventilator Bundle’ to focus on VAP • Advancing science of process measurement • CDC NHSN VAP definition is changing • Ventilator-Associated Event (VAE) algorithm • Identification of contextual variables • Ethnographic studies

  14. Interventions

  15. VAP Prevention Guidelines CDC Guidelines MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004;53:1-36 American Thoracic Society/ Infectious Diseases Society of America AJRCCM 2005;171(4):388-416. Canadian VAP Prevention Guidelines J Crit Care 2008;23(1):138-147. Society for Healthcare Epid of America ICHE 2008;29:S31-S40. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  16. Process measures: Daily evaluation Use a semi-recumbent position ( ≥ 30 degrees). Make a daily assessment of readiness to wean. Use sedation protocol with sedation vacation and validated sedation scale (i.e. RASS) at least daily. Use chlorhexidine when performing oral care. Use subglottic suctioning ETTs in patients expected to be mechanically ventilated for >72 hours Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  17. Structural measures (examples): Quarterly evaluation Use a closed ETT suctioning system Change close suctioning catheters only as needed Change ventilator circuits only if damaged or soiled Change HME every 5-7 days and as clinically indicated Provide easy access to NIVV equipment and institute protocols to promote use Periodically remove condensate from circuits, keeping the circuit closed during the removal, taking precautions not to allow condensate to drain toward patient ETT endotrachael tube; HME heat moist exchanger; NIVV non-invasive ventilation

  18. Early Ambulation RCT, 104 MICU patients on ventilators PT/OT starting at day 1-2 vs ‘usual care’ Passive range of motion to ambulation Improved return to independent functional status at hospital discharge Shorter duration of delirium Increased ventilator-free days 12. SchweickertLancet 2009; 373: 1874–82 Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  19. Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) • Educate staff on science of safety • Identify defects • Assign executive to adopt unit • Learn from one defect per quarter • Implement teamwork tools 13.Timmel Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010;36:252-60 14. Resources: www.safercare.net

  20. Sample Daily Goals Education Decrease complexity and create redundancy • Daily goals checklist • Standardized order sets and protocols Independent redundancies • Nursing, RT, families 15. Pronovost , J Crit Care. 2003;18(2):71-75

  21. Benefits of Participation

  22. Estimate of Preventable Harm and Costs Pennsylvania ( CY10- 11) 1426 VAP Cases 319 Deaths 10,000 LOS Days $115 Million Maryland (FY11) 583 VAP Cases 130 Deaths 4,000 LOS Days $47 Million 16.http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/quality_safety_research_group/our_projects/ventilator_associated_pheumonias/estimator.html Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  23. Benefits to Participation Improve patient outcomes Build upon and spread efforts to date Focused specifically on VAP prevention, including structural measures Get “a leg up” on the new CDC VAE definition Predicted to increase current VAP rates Aligned with public reporting of VAP Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  24. NHSN VAE reporting Starts Jan 2013 2 webinar calls targeting IPs Over 200 participants Ongoing training with CDC and experts from Epicenters for Excellence group. Explore resources to collect baseline data Explore transferring data collected during field testing and submit to NHSN Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  25. Benefits to Participation Maryland Pennsylvania VAP Publicly Recorded Part of the HAP Action Plan & PA- HEN VAP Project • Health Service Cost Review Commission's quality initiatives including Maryland Hospital Acquired Conditions (MHACs) Initiatives • Maryland Health Care Commission’s Healthcare-Associated Infections Prevention Plan • MHA BOT three-year strategic plan that includes the goal of zero VAP Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  26. Benefits to Participation Aligned with CMS led national initiatives to reduce harm via the Partnership for Patients Hospital Engagement Networks Inform future national VAP prevention efforts Model similar to CLABSI and CAUTI Advancing science together Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  27. CECity Project Platform Data collection Manual entry or electronic import Real time reporting Learning management system Share slides, protocols, literature, videos, etc. Social networking Working on MOC credit, CMEs for participation (in progress) Armstrong Institute for Patient, Safety and Quality

  28. What do teams need to do? Assemble a multidisciplinary team Including frontline unit staff Participate in 6 weekly on-boarding webinars followed by monthly content and coaching webinars All webinars recorded and archived online Regularly meet as a team to implement interventions and monitor performance Participate in state–specific requirements Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  29. What data will teams need to collect? Monthly VAE data using new CDC NHSN definitions Numerator and denominator Will work with you to collect baseline ‘VAE’ data Daily process measure data Quarterly structural measure and implementation data Brief survey and structured interview Annual teamwork/culture data using the AHRQ Hospital Survey of Patient Safety (HSOPS) Will work with HENS to ensure data reporting meets their needs Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  30. How do we enroll or learn more? Complete the commitment/enrollment form To learn more or to receive the enrollment packet contact: Karol G. Wicker, MHS Senior Director, Quality Policy & Advocacy Maryland Hospital Association kwicker@mhaonline.org Mary Catanzaro RN BSMT CIC Project Manager HAIs Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania mcatanzaro@haponline.org

  31. Questions or Comments? Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  32. References Slide 3 http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1865 Accessed: August 21, 2012. Slide 4 2. Safdar N, Dezfullian C, Collard HR, Saint S. Clinical and economic consequences of ventilator –associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2005 . Oct;33(10):2184-93. 3. Kollef MH, Shorr A, Tabak YP, Gupta V, Liu LZ, Johannes RS, Epidemiology and outcomes of health –care-associated pneumonia: results from a large US database of culture-positive pneumonia . Chest 2005. Dec;128(6):3854-62. 4. Perencevich EN, Stone PW, Wright SB, Carmeli Y, Fisman DN, Cosgrove SE, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Raising standards while watching the bottom line:making a business case for infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007. Oct;28(10):1121-33. 5. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Pollock DA, Cardo DM. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep. 2007 Mar-Apr;122(2):160-6. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  33. References Slide 9 6. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/armstrong_institute. Accessed: August 21, 2012. Slide 10 7. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, Sexton B, Hyzy R, Welsh R, Roth G, BanderJ,Kepros J, Goeschel C, . An intervention to decrease cathere- related bloodstream infection in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2725-32. 8. Pronovost PJ, Goeschel CA, Colantuoni E, Watson S, Lubomski LH, Berenholtz SM, Thompson DA, Sinopoli DJ, Cosgrove S, Sexton JB, Marsteller JA, Hyzy RC, Welsh R, Posa P, Schumacher K, Needham D. Sustaining reductions in catheter related bloodstream infections in Michigan intensive care units: observational study. BMJ 2010;340:c309. 9. Berenholtz SM, Pham JC, Thompson DA, Needham DM, Lubomski LH, Hyzy RC, Welsh R, Cosgrove SE, Sexton JB, Colantuoni E, Watson SR, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Collaborative cohort study of an intervention to reduce ventilator associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Infect Control HospEpidemiol. 2011;32(4): 305-314. 10 www.onthecuspstophai.org Accessed, August 21, 2012.

  34. References Slide 11 11. www.onthecuspstophai.org Accessed: August, 21, 2012. Slide 18 12. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, Nigos C, Pawlik AJ, Esbrook CL, Spears L, Miller M, Franczyk M, Deprizio D, Schmidt GA, Bowman A, Barr R,McCallister KE, Hall JB, Kress JP. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 May 30;373(9678):1874-82. Slide 19 Timmel J, Kent PS, Holzmueller CG, Paine L, Schulick RD, Pronovost PJ. Impact of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) on safety culture in a surgical inpatient unit. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010;36:252-60 14. www.safercare.net Accessed: August 21, 20012. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

  35. References Slide 20 15. 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(2):71-75 Slide22 16. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/quality_safety_research_group/our_projects/ventilator_associated_pheumonias/estimator.htmlAccessed: August 21, 2012. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

More Related