Brian Sullivan, Cecelia Zhang, Kara Wegermann, Tzu-Hao Lee, David A Leiman
{"title":"Standardizing inpatient colonoscopy preparations improves quality and provider satisfaction.","authors":"Brian Sullivan, Cecelia Zhang, Kara Wegermann, Tzu-Hao Lee, David A Leiman","doi":"10.1108/IJHCQA-11-2019-0186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation quality is frequently suboptimal. This quality improvement (QI) intervention is focused on regimenting this process to impact important outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC) methodology was employed, including generating a root-cause analysis to identify factors associated with inpatient bowel quality. These findings motivated the creation of a standardized electronic health record (EHR)-based order set with consistent instructions and anticipatory guidance for administering providers.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>There were 264 inpatient colonoscopies evaluated, including 198 procedures pre-intervention and 66 post-intervention. The intervention significantly improved the adequacy of right colon bowel preparations (75.0 percent vs 86.9 percent, <i>p</i> = 0.04) but not overall preparation quality (73.7 percent vs 80.3 percent, <i>p</i> = 0.22). The intervention led to numerical improvement in the proportion of procedures in which the preparation quality interfered with making a diagnosis (10 percent-6 percent, <i>p</i> = 0.29) or resulted in an aborted procedure (3.5 percent-1.5 percent, <i>p</i> = 0.39). After the intervention, provider satisfaction with the ordering process significantly increased (23.3 percent vs 61.1 percent, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>The QI intervention significantly reduced the number of inpatient colonoscopies with inadequate preparation in the right colon, while also modestly improving the diagnostic yield and proportion of aborted procedures. Importantly, the standardized EHR order set substantially improved provider satisfaction, which should justify broader use of such tools.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>Novel clinical outcomes such as ability to answer diagnostic questions were improved using this intervention. The results align with strategic goals to enhance provider experience and continuously improve quality of patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":47455,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-11-2019-0186","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-11-2019-0186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Purpose: Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation quality is frequently suboptimal. This quality improvement (QI) intervention is focused on regimenting this process to impact important outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC) methodology was employed, including generating a root-cause analysis to identify factors associated with inpatient bowel quality. These findings motivated the creation of a standardized electronic health record (EHR)-based order set with consistent instructions and anticipatory guidance for administering providers.
Findings: There were 264 inpatient colonoscopies evaluated, including 198 procedures pre-intervention and 66 post-intervention. The intervention significantly improved the adequacy of right colon bowel preparations (75.0 percent vs 86.9 percent, p = 0.04) but not overall preparation quality (73.7 percent vs 80.3 percent, p = 0.22). The intervention led to numerical improvement in the proportion of procedures in which the preparation quality interfered with making a diagnosis (10 percent-6 percent, p = 0.29) or resulted in an aborted procedure (3.5 percent-1.5 percent, p = 0.39). After the intervention, provider satisfaction with the ordering process significantly increased (23.3 percent vs 61.1 percent, p < 0.001).
Practical implications: The QI intervention significantly reduced the number of inpatient colonoscopies with inadequate preparation in the right colon, while also modestly improving the diagnostic yield and proportion of aborted procedures. Importantly, the standardized EHR order set substantially improved provider satisfaction, which should justify broader use of such tools.
Originality/value: Novel clinical outcomes such as ability to answer diagnostic questions were improved using this intervention. The results align with strategic goals to enhance provider experience and continuously improve quality of patient care.
目的:住院患者结肠镜检查肠准备质量经常不理想。这种质量改善(QI)干预的重点是控制这一过程,以影响重要的结果。设计/方法学/方法:采用定义、测量、分析、改善和控制(DMAIC)方法学,包括生成根本原因分析以确定与住院患者肠道质量相关的因素。这些发现促使建立了一个标准化的基于电子健康记录(EHR)的订单集,为管理提供者提供一致的指示和预期指导。结果:264例住院患者接受结肠镜检查,其中干预前198例,干预后66例。干预显著提高了右结肠肠道准备的充分性(75.0% vs 86.9%, p = 0.04),但没有改善整体准备质量(73.7% vs 80.3%, p = 0.22)。干预导致制备质量干扰诊断的手术比例(10% - 6%,p = 0.29)或导致手术流产(3.5% - 1.5%,p = 0.39)的数值改善。干预后,提供者对订购过程的满意度显著提高(23.3% vs 61.1%)。实际意义:QI干预显著减少了右结肠准备不足的住院结肠镜检查人数,同时也适度提高了诊断率和流产手术的比例。重要的是,标准化的EHR订单集大大提高了提供者的满意度,这应该证明更广泛地使用此类工具是合理的。独创性/价值:新的临床结果,如回答诊断问题的能力,使用这种干预措施得到改善。结果与战略目标一致,以提高提供者的经验,并不断提高患者护理质量。
期刊介绍:
■Successful quality/continuous improvement projects ■The use of quality tools and models in leadership management development such as the EFQM Excellence Model, Balanced Scorecard, Quality Standards, Managed Care ■Issues relating to process control such as Six Sigma, Leadership, Managing Change and Process Mapping ■Improving patient care through quality related programmes and/or research Articles that use quantitative and qualitative methods are encouraged.