BACKGROUND: Lung protective ventilation (LPV) is advocated for all patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), for any duration of time, to prevent worsening lung injury. Previous studies proved simple interventions can increase awareness of LPV and disease pathophysiology as well as improve adherence to LPV guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a multi-component LPV quality improvement project (QIP) on adherence to LPV guidelines.
METHODS: Tidal volume data for all patients requiring MV at a large, tertiary UK critical care unit were collected retrospectively over 3, 6 months, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles between September 2019 and August 2022. These cycles included the sequential implementation of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and targeted education led by a multispecialty working group.
METHODS: Adherence against predetermined targets of <5% of MV hours spent at >10 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) and >75% of MV hours spent <8 mL/kg PBW for all patients requiring MV.
RESULTS: 408 949 hours (17 040 days) of MV data were analysed. Improved LPV adherence was demonstrated throughout the QIP. During mandated MV, time spent >10 mL/kg PBW reduced from 7.65% of MV hours to 4.04% and time spent <8 mL/kg PBW improved from 68.86% of MV hours to 71.87% following the QIP. During spontaneous MV, adherence improved with a reduction in time spent >10 mL/kg PBW from baseline to completion (13.2% vs 6.75%) with increased time spent <8 mL/kg PBW (62.74% vs 72.25%). Despite demonstrating improvements in adherence, we were unable to achieve success in all our predetermined targets.
CONCLUSIONS: This multicomponent intervention including the use of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and education improves adherence to LPV guidelines. More robust data analysis of reasons for non-adherence to our predetermined targets is required to guide future interventions that may allow further improvement in adherence to LPV guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Utilisation of the Emergency Department (ED) for non-urgent care increases demand for services, therefore reducing inappropriate or avoidable attendances is an important area for intervention in prevention of ED crowding. This study aims to develop a consensus between clinicians across care settings about the \"appropriateness\" of attendances to the ED in Ireland.
METHODS: The Better Data, Better Planning study was a multi-centre, cross-sectional study investigating factors influencing ED utilisation in Ireland. Data was compiled in patient summary files which were assessed for measures of appropriateness by an academic General Practitioner (GP) and academic Emergency Medicine Consultant (EMC) National Panel. In cases where consensus was not reached charts were assessed by an Independent Review Panel (IRP). At each site all files were autonomously assessed by local GP-EMC panels.
RESULTS: The National Panel determined that 11% (GP) to 38% (EMC) of n = 306 lower acuity presentations could be treated by a GP within 24-48 h (k = 0.259; p < 0.001) and that 18% (GP) to 35% (EMC) of attendances could be considered \"inappropriate\" (k = 0.341; p < 0.001). For attendances deemed \"appropriate\" the admission rate was 47% compared to 0% for \"inappropriate\" attendees. There was no consensus on 45% of charts (n = 136). Subset analysis by the IRP determined that consensus for appropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 59% and for inappropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 29%. For the Local Panel review (n = 306) consensus on appropriateness ranged from 40 to 76% across ED sites.
CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary clinicians agree that \"inappropriate\" use of the ED in Ireland is an issue. However, obtaining consensus on appropriateness of attendance is challenging and there was a significant cohort of complex heterogenous presentations where agreement could not be reached by clinicians in this study. This research again demonstrates the complexity of ED crowding, the introduction of evidence-based care pathways targeting avoidable presentations may serve to alleviate the problem in our EDs.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines advise GPs in England which patients warrant an urgent referral for suspected cancer. This study assessed how often GPs follow the guidelines, whether certain patients are less likely to be referred, and how many patients were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year of non-referral.
METHODS: We used linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics) and cancer registration data. Patients presenting with haematuria, breast lump, dysphagia, iron-deficiency anaemia, post-menopausal or rectal bleeding for the first time during 2014-2015 were included (for ages where guidelines recommend urgent referral). Logistic regression was used to investigate whether receiving a referral was associated with feature type and patient characteristics. Cancer incidence (based on recorded diagnoses in cancer registry data within 1 year of presentation) was compared between those receiving and those not receiving referrals.
RESULTS: 48 715 patients were included, of which 40% (n=19 670) received an urgent referral within 14 days of presentation, varying by feature from 17% (dysphagia) to 68% (breast lump). Young patients (18-24 vs 55-64 years; adjusted OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (4 vs 0 comorbidities; adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, p<0.001) were less likely to receive a referral. Associations between patient characteristics and referrals differed across features: among patients presenting with anaemia, breast lump or haematuria, those with multi-morbidity, and additionally for breast lump, more deprived patients were less likely to receive a referral. Of 29 045 patients not receiving a referral, 3.6% (1047) were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year, ranging from 2.8% for rectal bleeding to 9.5% for anaemia.
CONCLUSIONS: Guideline recommendations for action are not followed for the majority of patients presenting with common possible cancer features. A significant number of these patients developed cancer within 1 year of their consultation, indicating scope for improvement in the diagnostic process.

Emergency medical regulation is a risky activity. In France, emergency medical societies have proposed activity and performance indicators, but their lists are non-exhaustive, unstructured and used heterogeneously among emergency medical call centres (Centres de Réception et de Régulation des Appels, CRRA). Our objective was to build by means of regional stakeholder consensus an operational quality dashboard for CRRAs.
We conducted an observational step in a French CRRA from June to September 2018 and at the same time listed existing activity and quality indicators through a rapid international literature review. We adapted and classified all indicators identified in a structured table. We prioritised them from April to September 2019 by seeking consensus with one regulator physician and one medical regulation assistant from the 13 CRRAs of the largest French region. We used an adapted Delphi method with a prioritisation scale from 1 to 9.
The rapid review of literature included 33 studies among the 414 identified and, with the first observational step, resulted in a list of 360 quality indicators covering the following areas: material resources, human resources, quality approach, call handling and postcall support. 15 of the 26 members participated in the entire process. Seventy indicators were considered as priorities with strong agreement among participants. We built an operational dashboard of quality indicators deemed high priority and provided 70 descriptive indicator sheets.
Our study allowed to build an operational quality dashboard for CRRAs as a ready-to-use support for an internal audit, for prioritisation of quality approach actions and for national and international benchmarking.

Data regarding vascular access device use and outcomes are limited. In part, this gap reflects the absence of guidance on what variables should be collected to assess patient outcomes. We sought to derive international consensus on a vascular access minimum dataset.
A modified Delphi study with three rounds (two electronic surveys and a face-to-face consensus panel) was conducted involving international vascular access specialists. In Rounds 1 and 2, electronic surveys were distributed to healthcare professionals specialising in vascular access. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of variables, feasibility of data collection and acceptability of items, definitions and response options. In Round 3, a purposive expert panel met to review Round 1 and 2 ratings and reach consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final items to be included in a minimum dataset for vascular access devices.
A total of 64 of 225 interdisciplinary healthcare professionals from 11 countries responded to Round 1 and 2 surveys (response rate of 34% and 29%, respectively). From the original 52 items, 50 items across five domains emerged from the Delphi procedure.Items related to demographic and clinical characteristics (n=5; eg, age), device characteristics (n=5; eg, device type), insertion (n=16; eg, indication), management (n=9; eg, dressing and securement), and complication and removal (n=15, eg, occlusion) were identified as requirements for a minimum dataset to track and evaluate vascular access device use and outcomes.
We developed and internally validated a minimum dataset for vascular access device research. This study generated new knowledge to enable healthcare systems to collect relevant, useful and meaningful vascular access data. Use of this standardised approach can help benchmark clinical practice and target improvements worldwide.

The UK Department of Health have targeted a reduction in stillbirth by 50% by 2025; to achieve this, the first version of the Saving Babies\' Lives Care Bundle (SBLCB) was developed by NHS England in 2016 to improve four key areas of antenatal and intrapartum care. Clinical practice guidelines are a key means by which quality improvement initiatives are disseminated to front-line staff.
Seventy-five clinical practice guidelines covering the four areas of antenatal and intrapartum care in the first version of SBLCB were obtained from 19 maternity providers. The content and quality of guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Maternity health professionals in participating organisations were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to determine perceptions toward and experiences of the use of clinical practice guidelines using a series of Likert scales.
Unit guidelines showed considerable variation in quality with median scores of 50%-58%. Only 4 (5.6%) guidelines were recommended for use in clinical practice without modifications, 54 (75.0%) were recommended for use subject to modifications and 12 (16.7%) were not recommended for use. The lowest scoring domains were \'rigour of development\', \'stakeholder involvement\' and \'applicability\'. A significant minority of unit guidelines omitted recommendations from national guidelines. The majority of staff believed that clinical practice guidelines standardised and improved the quality of care but over 30% had insufficient time to use them and 24% stated they were unable to implement recommendations.
To successfully implement initiatives such as the SBLCB change is needed to local clinical practice guidelines to reduce variation in quality and to ensure they are consistent with national recommendations . In addition, to improve clinical practice, adequate time and resources need to be in place to deliver and evaluate care recommended in the SBLCB.

Chronic prescription opioid use is a major international public health issue associated with significant harms, including increased risk of hospitalisation, morbidity and death. Guidance for healthcare professionals on when and how to deprescribe or reduce opioids is required. A key step for guideline development for deprescribing pharmacotherapy is to understand the perspectives of stakeholders. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of healthcare professional stakeholders on the challenges associated with opioid deprescribing and factors to be considered in the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines.
A qualitative study was undertaken with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals including prescribers, pharmacists and nurses. An initial cohort of participants was identified at the 2018 Australian Deprescribing Network annual meeting and two focus groups were conducted (n=20). Individual interviews were conducted with a further 11 healthcare professionals. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data underwent inductive thematic analysis using a phenomenological perspective.
Healthcare professionals viewed opioid deprescribing as a challenge and identified several key barriers to deprescribing in clinical practice. Medication, patient, prescriber and health system level challenges were identified. Participants requested evidence-based guidance on the withdrawal of opioid therapies and suggested that prospective opioid deprescribing guidelines require a multitarget, multimodal intervention strategy that addresses patient psychosocial factors and incorporates behavioural change techniques.
Opioid deprescribing was perceived as a complex and challenging practice with continued prescribing the default behaviour. Evidence-based opioid deprescribing guidelines may be a valuable resource for clinicians to support clinical decision-making and reduce suboptimal opioid use.

UNASSIGNED: The implementation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines is one of the most effective interventions for improving quality of care. A gap between guidelines and clinical practice often exists, which may result in patients not receiving appropriate care. This project aimed at improving adherence to lung cancer guidelines at our institution.
UNASSIGNED: The records of patients with lung cancer were evaluated for adherence to guidelines by using an auditing tool that was developed to capture pertinent information. The study team collected data about the following variables: compliance with documentation of pathological diagnosis, documentation of disease stage prior to treatment initiation, presentation at thoracic tumour board within 30 days of diagnosis, management course, and management of end of life in terms of early \'no code\' initiation, stopping chemotherapy and referral to palliative care prior to 2 weeks of death. Annual audits were performed from 2012 to 2015. Education and discussion with team members to address the deviations were the main interventions to improve adherence.
UNASSIGNED: The baseline measurements were taken in 2012 (49 patients). Histological subtype identification improved from 94% to 100%. Presentation of new cases at the tumour board improved from 35% to 82%. Testing for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation for non-squamous cell lung cancer improved from 77% to 100%. The staging was documented in 100% of the cases.
UNASSIGNED: Running audits to monitor adherence to guidelines and discussions with the team have a positive effect on providing consistent evidence-based care for patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Reasons for intentional non-adherence to guidelines are largely unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to gain insight into and categorize reasons for intentional non-adherence and their validity. Non-adherence might be a conscious choice by either the clinician or the patient, and is not influenced by external factors (e.g. lack of knowledge or resources). We use the term intentional non-adherence to describe this class of reasons for not following guideline recommendations.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers examined MEDLINE citations for studies that investigated reasons for guideline non-adherence. The obtained articles were assessed for relevance and quality. Our search yielded 2912 articles, of which 16 matched our inclusion criteria and quality requirements. We planned to determine an overall ranking of categories of non-adherence.
RESULTS: Seven studies investigated clinical reasons and performed adjudication, while nine studies did not perform adjudication. Non-adherence varied between 8.2% and 65.3%. Meta-analysis proved unfeasible due to heterogeneity of study methodologies. The percentage of reasons deemed valid by adjudication ranged from 6.6% to 93.6%. Guideline non-adherence was predominantly valid; contra-indications and patient preference were most often reported as reasons for intentional non-adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a wide range of rates of non-adherence to clinical guidelines. This non-adherence is often supported by valid reasons, mainly related to contra-indications and patient preference. Therefore, we submit that many guideline deviations are intentional and these deviations do not necessarily impact quality of care.