Quality Assurance and Patient Safety in The Intensive Care Unit

Published on 07/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Critical Care Medicine

Last modified 07/03/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 3428 times

Chapter 88 Quality Assurance and Patient Safety in The Intensive Care Unit

3 What is the relationship between the intensive care unit (ICU) organization and quality of care?

Evidence indicates that the structure and organization of an ICU can influence outcome. A collaborative relationship among members of the health care team is critical. A multidisciplinary approach with the addition of a full-time intensivist greatly improves the quality of patient care in the ICU, as does the presence of critical care nurses with appropriate staffing ratios and clinical pharmacists on the unit. The use of clinical protocols continues to expand, with reliable data about their use leading to an improvement of care in critically ill patients. The use of spontaneous breathing trials has been validated in multiple studies, but worldwide its use remains stagnant at best. Not using a protocolized weaning system is an example of the need for organizational improvement in an ICU to improve care. Resistance to protocol use has come in many forms, but one of the primary arguments has been the unwillingness of physicians to reduce medicine to a cookbook profession and the need for individual tailored care for each patient. An inherent mistake in this argument is a lack of recognition of the individualized clinical data from each patient that is analyzed and used to treat the patient in a logical manner.

Resistance to change in the practice of critical care medicine is reflective of a broader problem in medicine in which studies suggest that 30% to 40% of patients do not receive care consistent with current medical knowledge.

4 List the uses to which severity of illness scoring systems are commonly applied

image Stratification: Multiple scoring systems exist to stratify the severity or acuity of illness of critically ill patients. Examples of such classification systems are the:

image These systems allow comparison of outcomes related to differing therapeutic approaches and attempt to match patients for severity of illness. The multiple scoring systems have not been compared in a prospective manner. Scoring systems for specific disease processes in critically ill patients exist, such as the risk, injury, failure, loss (complete loss of kidney function × 4 weeks) and end-stage kidney disease (complete loss of kidney function × 3 months) (RIFLE) criteria for kidney injury. Disease-specific scoring systems allow for standardized assessment enabling uniformity for research.

image Efficiency of care delivery: Efficiency can be measured only if objective measures of resources are used together with models that define a population’s acuity of illness. It is important that the stratification of illness models have some validity in predicting outcome. These may be provided by the APACHE system and the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System, among others.

image Decision making in clinical management: Decision making may be aided by considering the information provided by scoring systems as these models allow physicians to stratify patients into cohorts. However, clinicians must be cognizant that scoring systems provide population illness overview, not specific patient prognosis. Individual patient data must be used when providing prognostic information for patients and their families.

image Economics: Scoring of patients can assist in appropriate billing and reimbursement code application.

6 List a number of observations on which to base assessment of outcome

Buy Membership for Critical Care Medicine Category to continue reading. Learn more here