我在重症监护病房的床边查房完成了吗?-清单的不可否认的力量

Vijai William, ManjinderSingh Randhawa
{"title":"我在重症监护病房的床边查房完成了吗?-清单的不可否认的力量","authors":"Vijai William, ManjinderSingh Randhawa","doi":"10.4103/jpcc.jpcc_70_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Checklists are a memory aid, they remind you of what you already know and prompt you to think about what you don’t.” -Atul Gawande In medicine and especially in the realm of intensive care units (ICUs), it is often the little things that make the maximum impact on the patient outcomes. One such tool, often underestimated in its simplicity yet profound in its impact, is the checklist. As we navigate the complex and high-stakes environment of the pediatric ICU (PICU), the implementation of checklists emerges as a crucial element in ensuring not only optimal patient outcomes but also a smoother workflow and enhanced communication. The concept of using checklists in health care is not a novel one. Aviation and other high-reliability organizations have demonstrated the life-saving potential of standardized procedures and task lists[1,2] In the context of the PICU, where a multitude of health-care professionals collaborate to deliver intricate and often urgent care, checklists provide a structured approach that can mitigate errors, foster teamwork, and promote a culture of accountability. At the heart of this approach lies the principle of “cognitive offloading,” where routine and critical tasks are documented and systematically checked off. This reduces the burden on health-care professionals’ working memory, enabling them to focus more on clinical decision-making and patient interactions.[3] Rounding is one part of the medicine that remains diverse. The direction, duration, and discussion on rounds may vary immensely depending on who is leading them. Holodinsky et al. surveyed adult ICUs in Canada and found considerable variation in rounding practices within and between institutions.[4] In this edition of the Journal of Pediatric Critical Care, Abbas et al. have published their quality improvement study, in which they have assessed the impact of introduction of a rounding checklist in a PICU.[5] In their before–after study, they assessed the impact of a 35-point rounding checklist on the coverage of patient care components, length of PICU stay, and health-care-associated infections. They demonstrated that, with the introduction of this checklist, the discussion on most components improved and overall compliance improved from 70% to 99%, which was in line with existing data.[6] They even demonstrated a reduction in length of PICU stay, health-care-associated infections, and mortality, with the introduction of this checklist. This significant impact on hard outcomes seems to have stemmed from increased compliance with the interventions of proven benefit such as infection control bundles, antibiotic stewardship, and nutrition optimization. The authors did a commendable job in preparing a nearly comprehensive checklist which included the various components of patient care in the PICU, including all organ systems, reminders for health-care-associated infections, nursing care, nutrition, and pharmacotherapy. They also included a reminder for resident teaching, but inexplicably, this decreased with the introduction of this checklist. The authors have tried to explain this with an increase in the size of the ICU and resulting increased workload. This explanation, however, brings into discussion, the impact of increasing number of residents, equipment, and overall growth of the unit on the measured outcomes. With time, the PICU team would have become more efficient and a positive impact on outcomes would bias the actual impact of a checklist introduced at the same time. Another important aspect of this study is the involvement and resulting empowerment of the nurses, in the implementation of the checklist. Empowerment of nurses is known to have a positive outcome on patient care, especially in similar PICUs in low- and middle-income countries.[7] Without a checklist, the risk of omitting a crucial step increases, especially when time is of the essence. By employing a well-structured checklist, the authors demonstrated that components such as pupillary reaction, sedation plan, endotracheal tube cuff pressure, gut dysfunction, glycemic control, and creatinine clearance were more often discussed. Furthermore, checklists foster interdisciplinary collaboration and communication. The dynamic nature of a PICU demands seamless interaction among doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and others. Checklists provide a shared framework, ensuring that everyone is on the same page and working toward a common goal. Regular check-ins to review the checklist also encourage open discussions, allowing team members to voice concerns, ask questions, and share insights. This collaborative atmosphere not only enhances patient care but also contributes to a culture of mutual respect and continuous learning. While the benefits of checklists are undeniable, their implementation requires careful consideration. A checklist should not be a rigid tool, but rather a dynamic aid that evolves based on the evidence-based practices, input from frontline health-care providers, and ongoing feedback loops. Critics may argue that the use of checklists could undermine the clinical judgment and foster a mechanistic approach to patient care. However, it is important to emphasize that checklists are not meant to replace critical thinking but to support it. They serve as a safety net, catching potential errors that can occur due to the inherent complexity of pediatric critical care. It is also important to recognize that checklists may not always improve hard outcomes, especially when implemented to procedures that are performed frequently.[8] On the other hand, it is important to understand that such low failure rates in these procedures may have been achieved by the help of the same checklists. They are essential aids in maintaining these numbers so that we do not falter from the targets already attained. In conclusion, the incorporation of checklists into the PICU represents a valuable addition to patient care. As we continue to explore innovative ways to improve outcomes and streamline processes, the power of this simple yet profound tool cannot be overlooked. By embracing the principles of cognitive offloading, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continuous improvement, we can harness the potential of checklists to create a safer, more efficient, and ultimately more compassionate environment.","PeriodicalId":34184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Critical Care","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are my bedside rounds in critical care unit complete? – The undeniable power of a checklist\",\"authors\":\"Vijai William, ManjinderSingh Randhawa\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jpcc.jpcc_70_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"“Checklists are a memory aid, they remind you of what you already know and prompt you to think about what you don’t.” -Atul Gawande In medicine and especially in the realm of intensive care units (ICUs), it is often the little things that make the maximum impact on the patient outcomes. One such tool, often underestimated in its simplicity yet profound in its impact, is the checklist. As we navigate the complex and high-stakes environment of the pediatric ICU (PICU), the implementation of checklists emerges as a crucial element in ensuring not only optimal patient outcomes but also a smoother workflow and enhanced communication. The concept of using checklists in health care is not a novel one. Aviation and other high-reliability organizations have demonstrated the life-saving potential of standardized procedures and task lists[1,2] In the context of the PICU, where a multitude of health-care professionals collaborate to deliver intricate and often urgent care, checklists provide a structured approach that can mitigate errors, foster teamwork, and promote a culture of accountability. At the heart of this approach lies the principle of “cognitive offloading,” where routine and critical tasks are documented and systematically checked off. This reduces the burden on health-care professionals’ working memory, enabling them to focus more on clinical decision-making and patient interactions.[3] Rounding is one part of the medicine that remains diverse. The direction, duration, and discussion on rounds may vary immensely depending on who is leading them. Holodinsky et al. surveyed adult ICUs in Canada and found considerable variation in rounding practices within and between institutions.[4] In this edition of the Journal of Pediatric Critical Care, Abbas et al. have published their quality improvement study, in which they have assessed the impact of introduction of a rounding checklist in a PICU.[5] In their before–after study, they assessed the impact of a 35-point rounding checklist on the coverage of patient care components, length of PICU stay, and health-care-associated infections. They demonstrated that, with the introduction of this checklist, the discussion on most components improved and overall compliance improved from 70% to 99%, which was in line with existing data.[6] They even demonstrated a reduction in length of PICU stay, health-care-associated infections, and mortality, with the introduction of this checklist. This significant impact on hard outcomes seems to have stemmed from increased compliance with the interventions of proven benefit such as infection control bundles, antibiotic stewardship, and nutrition optimization. The authors did a commendable job in preparing a nearly comprehensive checklist which included the various components of patient care in the PICU, including all organ systems, reminders for health-care-associated infections, nursing care, nutrition, and pharmacotherapy. They also included a reminder for resident teaching, but inexplicably, this decreased with the introduction of this checklist. The authors have tried to explain this with an increase in the size of the ICU and resulting increased workload. This explanation, however, brings into discussion, the impact of increasing number of residents, equipment, and overall growth of the unit on the measured outcomes. With time, the PICU team would have become more efficient and a positive impact on outcomes would bias the actual impact of a checklist introduced at the same time. Another important aspect of this study is the involvement and resulting empowerment of the nurses, in the implementation of the checklist. Empowerment of nurses is known to have a positive outcome on patient care, especially in similar PICUs in low- and middle-income countries.[7] Without a checklist, the risk of omitting a crucial step increases, especially when time is of the essence. By employing a well-structured checklist, the authors demonstrated that components such as pupillary reaction, sedation plan, endotracheal tube cuff pressure, gut dysfunction, glycemic control, and creatinine clearance were more often discussed. Furthermore, checklists foster interdisciplinary collaboration and communication. The dynamic nature of a PICU demands seamless interaction among doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and others. Checklists provide a shared framework, ensuring that everyone is on the same page and working toward a common goal. Regular check-ins to review the checklist also encourage open discussions, allowing team members to voice concerns, ask questions, and share insights. This collaborative atmosphere not only enhances patient care but also contributes to a culture of mutual respect and continuous learning. While the benefits of checklists are undeniable, their implementation requires careful consideration. A checklist should not be a rigid tool, but rather a dynamic aid that evolves based on the evidence-based practices, input from frontline health-care providers, and ongoing feedback loops. Critics may argue that the use of checklists could undermine the clinical judgment and foster a mechanistic approach to patient care. However, it is important to emphasize that checklists are not meant to replace critical thinking but to support it. They serve as a safety net, catching potential errors that can occur due to the inherent complexity of pediatric critical care. It is also important to recognize that checklists may not always improve hard outcomes, especially when implemented to procedures that are performed frequently.[8] On the other hand, it is important to understand that such low failure rates in these procedures may have been achieved by the help of the same checklists. They are essential aids in maintaining these numbers so that we do not falter from the targets already attained. In conclusion, the incorporation of checklists into the PICU represents a valuable addition to patient care. As we continue to explore innovative ways to improve outcomes and streamline processes, the power of this simple yet profound tool cannot be overlooked. By embracing the principles of cognitive offloading, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continuous improvement, we can harness the potential of checklists to create a safer, more efficient, and ultimately more compassionate environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcc.jpcc_70_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcc.jpcc_70_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“清单是一种记忆辅助工具,它提醒你已经知道的东西,并促使你思考你不知道的东西。”——阿图尔·加万德在医学领域,尤其是在重症监护病房(icu)领域,往往是小事对患者的预后产生最大的影响。清单就是这样一个工具,它的简单性常常被低估,但它的影响却很深远。当我们在儿科ICU (PICU)复杂和高风险的环境中导航时,检查清单的实施不仅是确保最佳患者结果的关键因素,也是确保更顺畅的工作流程和加强沟通的关键因素。在医疗保健中使用清单的概念并不新鲜。航空和其他高可靠性组织已经证明了标准化程序和任务清单在挽救生命方面的潜力[1,2]。在重症监护病房中,许多医疗保健专业人员合作提供复杂且经常紧急的护理,检查清单提供了一种结构化的方法,可以减少错误,培养团队合作,并促进问责文化。这种方法的核心是“认知卸载”原则,即记录和系统地检查日常和关键任务。这减轻了医疗保健专业人员工作记忆的负担,使他们能够更多地关注临床决策和患者互动。[3]四舍五入是这门医学中保持多样性的一部分。每个回合的方向、持续时间和讨论可能会因领导者的不同而有很大差异。Holodinsky等人调查了加拿大的成人icu,发现机构内部和机构之间的舍入做法存在相当大的差异。[4]在这一期的《儿科重症监护杂志》上,Abbas等人发表了他们的质量改进研究,其中他们评估了在PICU中引入四舍五入检查表的影响。[5]在他们的前后研究中,他们评估了一份35分的四舍五入检查表对患者护理内容、重症监护病房住院时间和卫生保健相关感染的影响。他们证明,随着该检查表的引入,对大多数组件的讨论得到了改进,并且总体遵从性从70%提高到99%,这与现有数据一致。[6]他们甚至证明,在PICU的停留时间,医疗相关感染和死亡率的减少,与此清单的引入。这种对硬结果的重大影响似乎源于对已证实有益的干预措施的依从性增加,如感染控制包、抗生素管理和营养优化。作者做了一份值得称赞的工作,准备了一份几乎全面的清单,其中包括PICU患者护理的各个组成部分,包括所有器官系统,卫生保健相关感染的提醒,护理,营养和药物治疗。他们还包括一个住院教学的提醒,但令人费解的是,这个清单的引入减少了。作者试图用ICU规模的增加和由此导致的工作量增加来解释这一点。然而,这一解释带来了讨论,增加居民数量,设备和单位的整体增长对测量结果的影响。随着时间的推移,PICU团队会变得更有效率,对结果的积极影响会影响到同时引入的检查表的实际影响。本研究的另一个重要方面是护士在实施检查表时的参与和授权。众所周知,赋予护士权力对患者护理有积极的影响,特别是在低收入和中等收入国家的类似picu中。[7]如果没有清单,遗漏关键步骤的风险就会增加,尤其是在时间紧迫的情况下。通过采用结构良好的检查表,作者证明瞳孔反应、镇静计划、气管内套管压力、肠道功能障碍、血糖控制和肌酐清除率等成分更常被讨论。此外,检查清单促进了跨学科的合作和交流。PICU的动态特性要求医生、护士、呼吸治疗师、药剂师和其他人员之间的无缝互动。清单提供了一个共享的框架,确保每个人都在同一个页面上,朝着共同的目标努力。定期检查检查清单也鼓励公开讨论,允许团队成员表达关注,提出问题,并分享见解。这种合作的氛围不仅提高了对病人的护理,而且有助于形成相互尊重和不断学习的文化。虽然检查清单的好处是不可否认的,但它们的实现需要仔细考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are my bedside rounds in critical care unit complete? – The undeniable power of a checklist
“Checklists are a memory aid, they remind you of what you already know and prompt you to think about what you don’t.” -Atul Gawande In medicine and especially in the realm of intensive care units (ICUs), it is often the little things that make the maximum impact on the patient outcomes. One such tool, often underestimated in its simplicity yet profound in its impact, is the checklist. As we navigate the complex and high-stakes environment of the pediatric ICU (PICU), the implementation of checklists emerges as a crucial element in ensuring not only optimal patient outcomes but also a smoother workflow and enhanced communication. The concept of using checklists in health care is not a novel one. Aviation and other high-reliability organizations have demonstrated the life-saving potential of standardized procedures and task lists[1,2] In the context of the PICU, where a multitude of health-care professionals collaborate to deliver intricate and often urgent care, checklists provide a structured approach that can mitigate errors, foster teamwork, and promote a culture of accountability. At the heart of this approach lies the principle of “cognitive offloading,” where routine and critical tasks are documented and systematically checked off. This reduces the burden on health-care professionals’ working memory, enabling them to focus more on clinical decision-making and patient interactions.[3] Rounding is one part of the medicine that remains diverse. The direction, duration, and discussion on rounds may vary immensely depending on who is leading them. Holodinsky et al. surveyed adult ICUs in Canada and found considerable variation in rounding practices within and between institutions.[4] In this edition of the Journal of Pediatric Critical Care, Abbas et al. have published their quality improvement study, in which they have assessed the impact of introduction of a rounding checklist in a PICU.[5] In their before–after study, they assessed the impact of a 35-point rounding checklist on the coverage of patient care components, length of PICU stay, and health-care-associated infections. They demonstrated that, with the introduction of this checklist, the discussion on most components improved and overall compliance improved from 70% to 99%, which was in line with existing data.[6] They even demonstrated a reduction in length of PICU stay, health-care-associated infections, and mortality, with the introduction of this checklist. This significant impact on hard outcomes seems to have stemmed from increased compliance with the interventions of proven benefit such as infection control bundles, antibiotic stewardship, and nutrition optimization. The authors did a commendable job in preparing a nearly comprehensive checklist which included the various components of patient care in the PICU, including all organ systems, reminders for health-care-associated infections, nursing care, nutrition, and pharmacotherapy. They also included a reminder for resident teaching, but inexplicably, this decreased with the introduction of this checklist. The authors have tried to explain this with an increase in the size of the ICU and resulting increased workload. This explanation, however, brings into discussion, the impact of increasing number of residents, equipment, and overall growth of the unit on the measured outcomes. With time, the PICU team would have become more efficient and a positive impact on outcomes would bias the actual impact of a checklist introduced at the same time. Another important aspect of this study is the involvement and resulting empowerment of the nurses, in the implementation of the checklist. Empowerment of nurses is known to have a positive outcome on patient care, especially in similar PICUs in low- and middle-income countries.[7] Without a checklist, the risk of omitting a crucial step increases, especially when time is of the essence. By employing a well-structured checklist, the authors demonstrated that components such as pupillary reaction, sedation plan, endotracheal tube cuff pressure, gut dysfunction, glycemic control, and creatinine clearance were more often discussed. Furthermore, checklists foster interdisciplinary collaboration and communication. The dynamic nature of a PICU demands seamless interaction among doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and others. Checklists provide a shared framework, ensuring that everyone is on the same page and working toward a common goal. Regular check-ins to review the checklist also encourage open discussions, allowing team members to voice concerns, ask questions, and share insights. This collaborative atmosphere not only enhances patient care but also contributes to a culture of mutual respect and continuous learning. While the benefits of checklists are undeniable, their implementation requires careful consideration. A checklist should not be a rigid tool, but rather a dynamic aid that evolves based on the evidence-based practices, input from frontline health-care providers, and ongoing feedback loops. Critics may argue that the use of checklists could undermine the clinical judgment and foster a mechanistic approach to patient care. However, it is important to emphasize that checklists are not meant to replace critical thinking but to support it. They serve as a safety net, catching potential errors that can occur due to the inherent complexity of pediatric critical care. It is also important to recognize that checklists may not always improve hard outcomes, especially when implemented to procedures that are performed frequently.[8] On the other hand, it is important to understand that such low failure rates in these procedures may have been achieved by the help of the same checklists. They are essential aids in maintaining these numbers so that we do not falter from the targets already attained. In conclusion, the incorporation of checklists into the PICU represents a valuable addition to patient care. As we continue to explore innovative ways to improve outcomes and streamline processes, the power of this simple yet profound tool cannot be overlooked. By embracing the principles of cognitive offloading, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continuous improvement, we can harness the potential of checklists to create a safer, more efficient, and ultimately more compassionate environment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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