The Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP)

An Intervention to Learn from Mistakes and Improve Safety Culture

Paula Kent, MSN, MBA September 11, 2012

Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

Conference Number(s):800-779-9891 Participant Code:4757941

On Boarding Call Schedule

2

• Program Introduction• Building Your CUSP Team• Science of Safety –September 4, 2012 @2:00pm• CUSP - September 11, 2012 @2:00pm• VAP Evidence- September 18,2012 @ 2:00pm• Daily Goal Review -September 25, 2012 @ 2:00pm

Learning Objectives

• Describe the CUSP intervention

• Delineate the five steps of CUSP

• Discuss how CUSP can be effectively used to achieve CUSP for VAP:EVAP project goals:

– To achieve significant reductions in VAP rates and complications related to mechanical ventilation

– To achieve significant improvements in safety culture

AN INTRODUCTION TO CUSPPart I

The Vision of CUSP

The Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program is designed to:

– Improve patient safety awareness and systems thinking at the unit level

– Mobilize staff to identify and resolve patient safety issues

– Create a patient safety partnership between executives and frontline caregivers

– Provide tools to help CUSP teams investigate and learn from defects and improve teamwork and safety culture

5

6

CUSP vs. VAP?

• CUSP is an Intervention to Learn from Mistakes and Improve Safety Culture

• CUSP is the safety foundation that supports the efforts to reduce VAP rates by translating evidence into practice (TRiP)

Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

The Armstrong Institute Model to Improve Care

Comprehensive Unit based Safety

Program (CUSP)

1. Educate staff on science of safety

2. Identify defects

3. Recruit executive to adopt unit

4. Learn from one defect per quarter

5. Implement teamwork tools

Translating Evidence Into

Practice(TRiP)

1. Summarize the evidence

2. Identify local barriers to implementation

3. Measure performance

4. Ensure all patients get the evidence

• Engage• Educate• Execute• Evaluate

Eliminating Ventilator Associated Pneumonia

• Emerging Evidence

• Local Opportunities to Improve

• Collaborative learning

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/armstrong_institute

Technical Work Adaptive Work

Pre-CUSP Work

• Create a CUSP team– Nurse, physician, administrator, respiratory

therapist, others– Imperative for frontline staff to be involved

• Measure culture in the unit (Hospital Survey of Patient Safety “HSOPS”)

• Work with hospital quality leader or hospital management to recruit a senior executive as an active member of the CUSP team

8

CUSP Steps

1. Educate everyone in the Science of Safety

2. Identify defects

3. Recruit executive as active CUSP team member

4. Learn from one defect per quarter

5. Implement teamwork tools

Timmel, et al. 2010.

A ‘WALK THROUGH’ OF THE CUSP PROCESS

Part II

Step 1: Educate Everyone in the Science of Safety

• Understand that the system determines performance

• Use strategies to improve system performance

• Standardize work to reduce complexity– Create independent checks for key processes– Learn from mistakes

• Apply strategies to both technical work and team work

• Recognize teams make wise decisions with diverse and independent input

11

Strategies for Educating on the Science of Safety

• Unit level staff meetings

• Medical staff grand rounds

• Hospital/unit orientation

• Continuous access via in-house TV / training

• Posting on intranets or other training sites

12

Step 2: Identify Defects

• Two-Question Staff Safety Assessment:

1. How is the next patient likely to be harmed on our unit?

2. What do you think we could do to prevent that harm?

• Review error reports, liability claims, sentinel events or M and M conference

13

Tap Into Staff Wisdom: How Will the Next Patient be Harmed?

Percent age of Responses (%)

148 answers from 51 staff members148 answers from 51 staff members

Reference: Schwengel, et al. 2011.

Step 3: Recruit Executive as Active CUSP Team Member

• Executive meets at least monthly with team – Review defects identified on staff safety assessment– Work with team and develop plan to reduce risks– Ensure team has resources to implement plan

• Shared accountability during monthly review of:– Action plans; infection data; resource allocations– HSOPS (culture) data– Staff Safety Assessment data

15Wick et al. 2012

Step 4: Learning from Defects (LFD)

• Select a specific defect and use LFD tool to explore:– What happened?

– Why did it happen? (Use system lenses from science of safety.)

– What could you do to reduce risk ?

– How do you know risk was reduced ?

• Create early wins for the project (“go after the low hanging fruit”)

Berenholtz, et al. 2009.

Pronovost, et al. 2006.16

Learning from Defects and VAP

• There are systems defects that contribute to the incidence of VAP.

• Many of these are related to the implementation of VAP prevention processes.

• Learning from defects analysis can help identify where the systems that should support these processes fall short.

17

VAP Prevention Processes: Opportunities for Improvement

1.Head of Bed Elevation (HOB)– Use of a semi-recumbent position ( ≥ 30 degrees).

2.Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials (SAT & SBT)– Daily assessment of sedation and readiness to wean

3.Oral Care– At least 6 times per day

4.Oral Care with Chlorhexidine (CHG)– Should be included in the oral care regimen 2 times per day

5.Subglottic Suctioning Endotracheal Tubes (ETTs)– Use subglottic suctioning ETTs in patients expected to be

mechanically ventilated for >72 hours

18Wick et al. 2012.

Opportunities for Improvement: Policy-Based Structural Measures

1. Use a closed ETT suctioning system

2. Change close suctioning catheters only as needed

3. Change ventilator circuits only if damaged or soiled

4. Change HME every 5-7 days and as clinically indicated

ETT endotrachael tube; HME heat moist exchanger 19

Opportunities for Improvement: Policy-Based Structural Measures, cont’d

5. Provide easy access to NIVV equipment and institute protocols to promote use

6. Periodically remove condensate from circuits, keeping the circuit closed during the removal, taking precautions not to allow condensate to drain toward patient

7. Use early mobility protocolNIVV non-invasive ventilation 20

Nundy et al. 2008Henrickson et al. 2009Berenholtz et al. 2009Haynes et al. 2009

Opportunities for Improvement: Policy-Based Structural Measures, cont’d.

8. Perform hand hygiene9. Avoid supine position10.Use standard precautions while suctioning

respiratory tract secretions11.Use orotracheal intubation instead of

nasotracheal12.Avoid use of prophylactic systemic

antimicrobials13.Avoid non-essential tracheal suctioning14.Avoid gastric over-distention

21

Step 5: Implement Teamwork Tools

• Specific TeamSTEPPS® Teamwork Tools

• Morning Briefing / Huddle

• Handoff Tools/Daily Goals Checklist

• Barrier Identification and Mitigation (BIM) Tool

• Learning from Defects

• Shadowing

• Safety Culture Debriefing

22

It Takes Culture Change to Get the Most Out of Checklists

• Culture change is critical to improving briefings and debriefings

• Example: WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

– Significant reductions in mortality and morbidity

– 50% of reductions were associated with the amount of culture change in the sites

Think beyond the checklist!Think beyond the checklist!

23Haynes, et al., 2009

Michigan CUSP Results

• “Needs Improvement”: Less than 60% of respondents reporting good safety or teamwork climate

• Statewide in 2004, 82-84% needed improvement, in 2007 22-23%

 

Pronovost, et al. 2008. Sexton, et al. 2011

25

CUSP Lessons Learned

• Culture is local– Implement in a few units, adapt and spread– Include frontline staff on improvement team

• Not a linear process– Iterative cycles– Culture change is a long-term journey (it takes time to

improve)

• Most effective when coupled with TRiP– Opportunity to practice CUSP tools– Engages frontline providers– CUSP alone viewed as ‘soft’

Action Items

• Ensure CUSP team members who could not attend this call access archived materials at the Armstrong Institute (AI) website

– http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/quality_safety_research_group/our_projects/action_II/SUSP/

• Continue to form your team with an appreciation of the importance of WHO is on the team

– Complete the CUSP team membership form (available from your hospital association)

– Identify key missing players/roles

• Think about how you will:– Train everyone in the science of safety– Identify hazards– Recruit and engage an executive as active CUSP team member

26

Finalize enrollment

• Complete and submit the commitment/enrollment forms

• Questions or comments:

– Karol G. Wicker, MHSSenior Director, Quality Policy & AdvocacyMaryland Hospital Associationkwicker@mhaonline.org

– Mary Catanzaro RN BSMT CIC Project Manager HAIs Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvaniamcatanzaro@haponline.org

27

28

References

Slide 5: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/armstrong_institute Accessed September 17th 2012.

Slide 9: Timmel J, Kent PS, Holzmueller CG, Paine LA, 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.

Slide 14: Schwengel DA, Winters BD, Berkow LC, Mark L, Heitmiller ES, Berenholtz SM.  A novel approach to implementation of quality and safety Programs in anesthesiology. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011 Dec;25(4):557-67. 

Slide 15: Wick EC, Hobson D, Bennett J, Demski R, Maragakis L, Gearhart SL, et al.  Implementation of a surgical Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP) to reduce surgical site infections. J Am Coll Surg.  2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print]

Slide 16:Berenholtz SM, Hartsell TL, Pronovost PJ. Learning From defects to enhance morbidity and mortality conferences. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(3):192-5.Pronovost PJ, Holzmueller CG, Martinez E, et al. A practical tool to learn from defects in patient care. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2006;32:102-108.

Slide 18: Wick EC, Hobson D, Bennett J, Demski R, Maragakis L, Gearhart SL, et al.  Implementation of a surgical Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP) to reduce surgical site infections. J Am Coll Surg.  2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print]

29

References

Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality

Slides 19 - 20:

Nundy S, Mukherjee A, Sexton JB, Pronovost PJ, et al. Impact of preoperative briefings on operating room delays: A preliminary report. Arch Surg. 2008;143(11): 1068-1072.

Henrickson SE, Wadhera RK, ElBardissi AW, Wiegmann DA, Sundt TM. Development and pilot evaluation of a preoperative briefing protocol for cardiovascular surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:1115–1123.

Berenholtz SM, Schumacher K, Hayanga AJ, et al. Implementing standardized operating room briefings and debriefings at a large regional medical center. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35:391-397.

Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:491-499.

Slide 23:

Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:491-499.

Slide 24:Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel C, et al. Improving patient safety in intensive care units in Michigan. J Crit Care. 2008;23:207-221.

Sexton JB, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel CA, et al. Assessing and improving safety climate in a large cohort of ICUs. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(5):1-6.