4.7 Article

Interventions to Improve Patient Safety During Intubation in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 138, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-0069

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [5T32HD068256-02]
  2. John and Leslie Hooper Neonatal-Perinatal Endowment Fund
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH [UL1 TR000445]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To improve patient safety in our NICU by decreasing the incidence of intubation-associated adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We sequentially implemented and tested 3 interventions: standardized checklist for intubation, premedication algorithm, and computerized provider order entry set for intubation. We compared baseline data collected over 10 months (period 1) with data collected over a 10-month intervention and sustainment period (period 2). Outcomes were the percentage of intubations containing any prospectively defined AE and intubations with bradycardia or hypoxemia. We followed process measures for each intervention. We used risk ratios (RRs) and statistical process control methods in a times series design to assess differences between the 2 periods. RESULTS: AEs occurred in 126/273 (46%) intubations during period 1 and 85/236 (36%) intubations during period 2 (RR = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.97). Significantly fewer intubations with bradycardia (24.2% vs 9.3%, RR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.61) and hypoxemia (44.3% vs 33.1%, RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.6-0.93) occurred during period 2. Using statistical process control methods, we identified 2 cases of special cause variation with a sustained decrease in AEs and bradycardia after implementation of our checklist. All process measures increased reflecting sustained improvement throughout data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Our interventions resulted in a 10% absolute reduction in AEs that was sustained. Implementation of a standardized checklist for intubation made the greatest impact, with reductions in both AEs and bradycardia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据