Person:

Urman, Richard

Background: The Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) was launched in 2005. The core prophylactic perioperative antibiotic guidelines were created due to recognition of the impact of proper perioperative prophylaxis on an estimated annual one million inpatient days and $1.6 billion in excess health care costs secondary to preventable surgical site infections (SSIs). An internal study was conducted to create low cost, standardized processes on an institutional level to improve compliance with prophylactic antibiotic administration. Methods: We assessed the impact of auditing and notifying providers of SCIP errors on overall compliance with inpatient antibiotic guidelines and on net financial gain or loss to a large tertiary center between March 1st 2010 and September 31st 2013. We hypothesized that direct physician-to-physician feedback would result in significant compliance improvements. Results: Through physician notification, our hospital was able to significantly improve SCIP compliance and emphasis on patient safety within a year of intervention implementation. The hospital earned an additional $290,612 in 2011 and $209,096 in 2012 for re-investment in patient care initiatives. Conclusions: Provider education and direct notification of SCIP prophylactic antibiotic dosing errors resulted in improved compliance with national patient improvement guidelines. There were differences between the anesthesiology and surgery department feedback responses, the latter likely attributed to diverse surgical department sub-divisions, frequent changes in resident trainees and supervising attending staff, and the comparative ability. Provider notification of guideline non-compliance should be encouraged as standard practice to improve patient safety. Also, the hospital experienced increased revenue for re-investment in patient care as a secondary result of provider notification.

Objective: Simulation-based interventions and education can potentially contribute to safer and more effective systems of care. We utilized in-situ simulation to highlight safety issues, regulatory requirements, and assess perceptions of safety processes by the plastic surgery office staff. Methods: A high-fidelity human patient simulator was brought to an office-based plastic surgery setting to enact a half-day full-scale, multidisciplinary medical emergency. Facilitated group debriefings were conducted after each scenario with special consideration of the principles of team training, communication, crisis management, and adherence to evidence-based protocols and regulatory standards. Abbreviated AHRQ Medical Office Safety Culture Survey was completed by the participants before and after the session. Results: The in-situ simulations had a high degree of acceptance and face validity according to the participants. Areas highlighted by the simulation sessions included rapid communication, delegation of tasks, location of emergency materials, scope of practice, and logistics of transport. The participant survey indicated greater awareness of patient safety issues following participation in simulation and debriefing exercises in 3 areas (P < 0.05): the need to change processes if there is a recognized patient safety issue (100% vs 75%), openness to ideas about improving office processes (100% vs 88%), and the need to discuss ways to prevent errors from recurring (88% vs 62%). Conclusions: Issues of safety and regulatory compliance can be assessed in an office-based setting through the short-term (half-day) use of in-situ simulation with facilitated debriefing and the review of audiovisual recordings by trained facilities inspectors.

Objective: To implement a customizable checklist in an interdisciplinary, team-based plastic surgery setting to reduce surgical complications. Methods: We examined the effects on patient outcomes and documentation of a customizable, office-based surgical safety checklist. On the basis of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, we developed a 28-element, perioperative checklist for use in the office-based surgical setting. The checklist was implemented in an office-based plastic surgery practice with an already high standard of care. We recorded baseline, prechecklist rates for each checklist item and postoperative adverse outcomes via a retrospective chart review of 219 cases. After an education program and 30-day run-in period, a prospective, post–checklist implementation chart review was initiated (n = 184), with outcome data compared to the baseline. Results: The total number of complications per 100 patients decreased from 15.1 to 2.72 after checklist implementation (P < .0001), for an absolute risk reduction of 12.4. The proportion of patients with one or more complications decreased from 11.9% to 2.72% (P = .0006). Site and side marking increased from 69.9% prechecklist to 97.8% (P < .0001). Medical optimization increased from 90.9% to 99.5% (P < .0001). Emergency medical services (EMS) policy confirmation, case-specific equipment availability, anticipation of estimated blood loss, and verbal confirmation of local anesthetic toxicity precautions increased from 0% to 90.0% (P < .0001), 92.4% (P < .0001), 82.1% (P < .0001), and 91.3% (P < .0001), respectively. Assessment of patient satisfaction increased from 57.1% to 90.8% (P < .0001). Conclusions: Implementation of a customizable checklist was associated with a reduction in surgical complications in an office-based plastic surgery practice with an already high standard of care.