Increasing the rates of pre-operative stoma site marking in patients with intestinal ostomy (INSTOSI): a best practice implementation project.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eni Shehu, Dawid Pieper, Hendrik C Albrecht, Stephan Gretschel, Colin M Krüger, Francesco Leggio, René Mantke, Oskar Rückbeil, Christoph Paasch, Mateusz Trawa, Jitka Klugarová, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Małgorzata M Bała, Robert Prill, Charlotte M Kugler
{"title":"Increasing the rates of pre-operative stoma site marking in patients with intestinal ostomy (INSTOSI): a best practice implementation project.","authors":"Eni Shehu, Dawid Pieper, Hendrik C Albrecht, Stephan Gretschel, Colin M Krüger, Francesco Leggio, René Mantke, Oskar Rückbeil, Christoph Paasch, Mateusz Trawa, Jitka Klugarová, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Małgorzata M Bała, Robert Prill, Charlotte M Kugler","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pre-operative stoma site marking is a strongly recommended practice for preventing complications and improving the health-related quality of life of intestinal stoma patients. Despite its benefits, this practice is not routinely implemented in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to increase the rate of pre-operative stoma site marking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This evidence implementation project was conducted in three hospitals at the Brandenburg Medical School, Germany. The project followed the seven-stage JBI audit and feedback process recommended in the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework: (1) identification of practice area for change, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) situational analysis of context, (4) baseline audit of stoma site marking rate, (5) strategy implementation (workshops with surgeons in each hospital to discuss baseline results), (6) 1-year follow-up audit, and (7) assessing the sustainability of practice changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline audit revealed the following marking rates: 163 of 305 cases (53%) were marked across the three hospitals between 2017 and 2022. Elective cases were more often marked (145 of 200, 73%) than emergency cases (18 of 105, 17%). Barriers included poor physical state of emergency patients, lack of time, memory recall, and communication issues between surgeons and nurses. At follow-up 1 year after the workshops, 86 of 173 cases (50%) were marked (elective cases: 57 of 80, 71%; emergency cases: 29 of 93, 31%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Audit and feedback did not increase the overall rate of pre-operative stoma site marking, but did improve the rate in emergency cases. A single workshop may be insufficient to effect change. Electronic patient data lacked standardized documentation for pre-operative stoma site marking.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A329.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000503","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pre-operative stoma site marking is a strongly recommended practice for preventing complications and improving the health-related quality of life of intestinal stoma patients. Despite its benefits, this practice is not routinely implemented in clinical practice.

Objectives: This study aimed to increase the rate of pre-operative stoma site marking.

Methods: This evidence implementation project was conducted in three hospitals at the Brandenburg Medical School, Germany. The project followed the seven-stage JBI audit and feedback process recommended in the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework: (1) identification of practice area for change, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) situational analysis of context, (4) baseline audit of stoma site marking rate, (5) strategy implementation (workshops with surgeons in each hospital to discuss baseline results), (6) 1-year follow-up audit, and (7) assessing the sustainability of practice changes.

Results: The baseline audit revealed the following marking rates: 163 of 305 cases (53%) were marked across the three hospitals between 2017 and 2022. Elective cases were more often marked (145 of 200, 73%) than emergency cases (18 of 105, 17%). Barriers included poor physical state of emergency patients, lack of time, memory recall, and communication issues between surgeons and nurses. At follow-up 1 year after the workshops, 86 of 173 cases (50%) were marked (elective cases: 57 of 80, 71%; emergency cases: 29 of 93, 31%).

Conclusions: Audit and feedback did not increase the overall rate of pre-operative stoma site marking, but did improve the rate in emergency cases. A single workshop may be insufficient to effect change. Electronic patient data lacked standardized documentation for pre-operative stoma site marking.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A329.

提高肠造口术(INSTOSI)患者术前造口位置标记率:最佳实践实施项目。
引言:术前造口部位标记是一种强烈推荐的做法,可以预防并发症,提高肠造口患者的健康相关生活质量。尽管它的好处,这种做法并没有在临床实践中常规实施。目的:提高术前造口部位标记率。方法:本证据实施项目在德国勃兰登堡医学院的三家医院进行。该项目遵循JBI证据实施框架中建议的七阶段JBI审计和反馈过程:(1)确定需要改变的实践领域,(2)利益相关者参与,(3)情境分析,(4)对造口部位标记率进行基线审计,(5)战略实施(与每家医院的外科医生讨论基线结果),(6)1年随访审计,(7)评估实践变化的可持续性。结果:基线审计显示以下标记率:2017年至2022年,三家医院的305例病例中有163例(53%)被标记。选择性病例(200例中145例,73%)比急诊病例(105例中18例,17%)更常被标记。障碍包括急诊病人身体状况不佳、缺乏时间、记忆回忆以及外科医生和护士之间的沟通问题。在研讨会结束后1年的随访中,173例患者中有86例(50%)被标记(选择性病例:80例中57例,71%;急诊病例:93例中29例,占31%)。结论:审计和反馈并没有提高术前造口位置标记的总体率,但确实提高了急诊病例的比率。一个单独的车间可能不足以产生变化。电子患者数据缺乏术前造口部位标记的标准化文件。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A329。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信