Managing the Deteriorating Patient in Community Care – Adapting the QLD Health Patient Safety...

Preview:

DESCRIPTION

Lynette Adams, Principal Project Officer, Patient Safety Unit, QLD Healthdelivered this presentation at the 2013 Managing the Deteriorating Patient conference. The management of patients in clinical deterioration has become a chief concern for Australian hospitals, with a patient’s potential for deterioration existing in every hospital ward and health service across the country. This annual event focusses on improving education for staff caring for these patients, and improving the policies and protocols in place to maintain patient safety. For more information, please visit the event website: www.healthcareconferences.com.au/deterioratingpatients

Citation preview

Early Warning and Response System Tools

and Hospital in the Home

Patient Safety Unit, HSIB

Overview

• CEWT and Q-ADDS development

• HITH

– Background

– Development CEWT and Q-ADDS HITH

– Trial

– Outcomes

– Lessons

• Future work

Background

• Children’s Early Warning Tool (CEWT)

• Queensland- Adult Deterioration Detection

System (Q-ADDS)

Children’s Early Warning Tool

(CEWT)

Blue Sky View

Tertiary Paediatric Facility

• CEWT

• Admissions unit

•Outreach / MET team

• HDU

• PLS / APLS

Regional Paediatric Facility

• CEWT

• Adult ICU links

• Admissions unit

•HDU / telepaediatric bed

• PLS / APLS

Rural Paediatric Facility

• CEWT

• PLS / APLS

Retrieval service

Retrieval service

Telepaediatrics

Clinical networks

Telepaediatrics

Clinical networks

Paediatric Mortality Committee

Bronchiolitis <1yr (mean +/- CI95%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

Time (hours)

CE

WT

sco

re

PICU n=34

Retrospective no PICU n=23

Prospective no PICU n=86

Retrieval n=17

Median ICU admission time P < 0.05

Bronchiolitis < 1yr PICU vs no PICU: Respiratory Rate (mean +/- CI 95%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57

Time (hours)

Resp

irato

ry r

ate

(b

reath

s/m

in)

Retrospective PICU n=19

Retrospective - No PICU n=12

Prospective no PICU n=86

Median ICU admission time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time (hours)

Re

sp

ira

tory

ra

te

Bronchiolitis <1yr: PICU vs no PICU Heart Rate

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57

Time (hours)

Hea

rt r

ate

(b

ea

ts/m

in)

Retrospective - PICU n=19

Retrospective - No PICU n=12

Prospective n=86

Median ICU admission time

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sen

siti

vity

1 - specificity

ROC curves: Australasian Paediatric response tools (patients, bronchiolitis<1yr)

CEWT

MET

BTF

Paed Compass

Maximum CEWT score

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

CEWT score

Pa

tie

nts

83%

n =1886

Split the under ones?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Re

sp

ira

tory

ra

te (

bre

ath

s/m

in)

Time (Hours)

Bronchiolitis Respiratory Rate <4mths vs. 4-12 mths

RR <4 mths

RR <4mths

RR 4-12 mths

RR 4-12 mths

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

< 4 months

4 to 12

Bronchiolitis HR <4/12 vs >4/12

Q-ADDS

Variants

• Emergency Department (adult trial; RR/PHC trial)

• Mental Health

• Maternity (trial)

Hospital in the Home (HITH)

• Care in community setting

• Acute conditions -clinical governance,

monitoring &/or input

• Otherwise require treatment in inpatient

hospital bed.

• Similar standard of care

HITH-Patient and system

benefits

• Patients improved outcomes & recovery at

home, fewer complications1

• Qld target- 1.5% of total hospital

separations HITH (0.3% 2012, 0.6% 2013)

• Significant growth required

• Outsourcing of services

1- Deloitte Access Economics 2011

HITH

• Nurse

• Medical Officer and/or

• Allied health professional

• Admin

• Daily or twice daily service -7 days

DRGs

• cellulitis;

• venous thrombosis;

• pulmonary embolus;

• respiratory infection/inflammation;

• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD);

• knee replacement.

Safety-Patient cared for by HITH

• Phone MO- Saturday- “Sit on them”

• Phone MO- Sunday “Team can review tomorrow”

• Monday- renal failure due to medication allergy

• RCA – EWARS would have flagged

– Clinicians involved thought EWARS would have been beneficial

– Using inpatient EWARS tool or NO observation tool

Safety

• Receive equivalent care

– Screening & assessment

– Education- patients/ carers & staff

– 24 hr phone support

– Introduce a HITH specific EWARS

Needs of HITH EWARS

• CEWT or Q-ADDS scoring “guts”

• Responses tailored to HITH

• Interface smoothly with inpatient CEWT and Q-ADDS

• Address Pain assessment and analgesia

• Human factors design principles

Development

• Statewide working group

• Steering Committee

• Guidance on what could / could not be

changed

• Clinician engagement

• Explanation of decisions

• Patient Safety to approve

Actions for HITH

Total CEWT Score

• Minimum daily full CEWT score

Total CEWT Score 1–3

• Manage anxiety / fever / pain (pain tool overleaf)

• Review oxygen requirement (if applicable)

• Notify medical officer for advice

• Educate patient/carer regarding signs of deterioration

• Notify team leader / nurse manager

• Document interventions

Total CEWT Score 4–5

• Consider anaphylaxis and follow local

protocol

• Notify medical officer of planned transfer for

face-to-face medical officer review (seek

advice on transfer method)

• Stay with patient until transfer

• Obtain a full CEWT score at least every 30

minutes

• Notify team leader / nurse manager

• Document interventions

HITH

trial

sites

Audit results

• Modifications (chronic) rare 1.6%

• Patient identification- 85% all pg

Observation completeness (n=129)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Respiratory Rate O2 Saturation O2 Flow Rate Systolic BP Heart Rate Temperature Consciousness

Highest HITH score (n=129)

Pain score with obs (n=129)

EWARS Score accuracy %

129 2250 1500 349

Score inaccurate

Feedback

• Report of scores triggering patient medical

r/v & admission to hospital

• Staff report

– “really beneficial”,

– “flag patients earlier than they would pick for

review” (+ve way)

– “actions are really helpful & relevant”

– “clear trend helpful”

– “move specific obs near main obs”

– “calling a discretionary for scores ≤3”

Lessons

• Importance of involving local clinicians

• Adaptations can go well

• Audits-(1 pt score 4- rest 0 however 20

incorrect score)

• Continued supply of EWARS post trial

Future work

HR

Te

mp

R

R

BP

U

.O.

Hb

Pa

in

Acknowledgements • HITH- Laureen Hines, Amanda Kivic & HITH

clinicians

• Kevin McCaffery,

• PSU- Shaune Gifford, Kate Smith, Jillann

Farmer, Rowena Richardson, Alexis Stockwell,

Matt Page, Hamish Yeates

• UQ- Marcus, Mark, Andrew, Megan and Melanie

• Steering Committee, working groups and

clinicians

Questions

• Contact RMDP@health.qld.gov.au

or 07 3646 6646

Recommended