A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Rapid Response System Inequities for Patients with Limited English Proficiency at a Quaternary Academic Medical Center.
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Feb 2024
21 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
26
04
2023
accepted:
06
02
2024
medline:
21
2
2024
pubmed:
21
2
2024
entrez:
21
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Recognition of clinically deteriorating hospitalized patients with activation of rapid response (RR) systems can prevent patient harm. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), however, experience less benefit from RR systems than do their English-speaking counterparts. To improve outcomes among hospitalized LEP patients experiencing clinical deteriorations. Quasi-experimental pre-post design using quality improvement (QI) statistics. All adult hospitalized non-intensive care patients with LEP who were admitted to a large academic medical center from May 2021 through March 2023 and experienced RR system activation were included in the evaluation. All patients included after May 2022 were exposed to the intervention. Implementation of a modified RR system for LEP patients in May 2022 that included electronic dashboard monitoring of early warning scores (EWSs) based on electronic medical record data; RR nurse initiation of consults or full RR system activation; and systematic engagement of interpreters. Process of care measures included monthly rates of RR system activation, critical response nurse consultations, and disease severity scores prior to activation. Main outcomes included average post-RR system activation length of stay, escalation of care, and in-hospital mortality. Analyses used QI statistics to identify special cause variation in pre-post control charts based on monthly data aggregates. In total, 222 patients experienced at least one RR system activation during the study period. We saw no special cause variation for process measures, or for length of hospitalization or escalation of care. There was, however, special cause variation in mortality rates with an overall pre-post decrease in average monthly mortality from 7.42% (n = 8/107) to 6.09% (n = 7/115). In this pilot study, prioritized tracking, utilization of EWS-triggered evaluations, and interpreter integration into the RR system for LEP patients were feasible to implement and showed promise for reducing post-RR system activation mortality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recognition of clinically deteriorating hospitalized patients with activation of rapid response (RR) systems can prevent patient harm. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), however, experience less benefit from RR systems than do their English-speaking counterparts.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To improve outcomes among hospitalized LEP patients experiencing clinical deteriorations.
DESIGN
METHODS
Quasi-experimental pre-post design using quality improvement (QI) statistics.
PARTICIPANTS
METHODS
All adult hospitalized non-intensive care patients with LEP who were admitted to a large academic medical center from May 2021 through March 2023 and experienced RR system activation were included in the evaluation. All patients included after May 2022 were exposed to the intervention.
INTERVENTIONS
METHODS
Implementation of a modified RR system for LEP patients in May 2022 that included electronic dashboard monitoring of early warning scores (EWSs) based on electronic medical record data; RR nurse initiation of consults or full RR system activation; and systematic engagement of interpreters.
MAIN MEASURES
METHODS
Process of care measures included monthly rates of RR system activation, critical response nurse consultations, and disease severity scores prior to activation. Main outcomes included average post-RR system activation length of stay, escalation of care, and in-hospital mortality. Analyses used QI statistics to identify special cause variation in pre-post control charts based on monthly data aggregates.
KEY RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 222 patients experienced at least one RR system activation during the study period. We saw no special cause variation for process measures, or for length of hospitalization or escalation of care. There was, however, special cause variation in mortality rates with an overall pre-post decrease in average monthly mortality from 7.42% (n = 8/107) to 6.09% (n = 7/115).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this pilot study, prioritized tracking, utilization of EWS-triggered evaluations, and interpreter integration into the RR system for LEP patients were feasible to implement and showed promise for reducing post-RR system activation mortality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38381243
doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08678-x
pii: 10.1007/s11606-024-08678-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ID : ECBR2107
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.
Références
Rashoka FN, Kelley MS, Choi JK, Garcia MA, Chai W, Rashawka HN. "Many people have no idea": a qualitative analysis of healthcare barriers among Yazidi refugees in the Midwestern United States. Int J Equity Health. 2022;21(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01654-z
doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01654-z
pubmed: 35410348
pmcid: 8995685
Lee JS, Pérez-Stable EJ, Gregorich SE, et al. Increased Access to Professional Interpreters in the Hospital Improves Informed Consent for Patients with Limited English Proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(8):863-870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-3983-4
doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-3983-4
pubmed: 28185201
pmcid: 5515780
Morris MD, Popper ST, Rodwell TC, Brodine SK, Brouwer KC. Healthcare barriers of refugees post-resettlement. J Community Health. 2009;34(6):529-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-009-9175-3
doi: 10.1007/s10900-009-9175-3
pubmed: 19705264
pmcid: 2778771
Divi C, Koss RG, Schmaltz SP, Loeb JM. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(2):60-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzl069
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl069
pubmed: 17277013
Hines AL, Andrews RM, Moy E, Barrett ML, Coffey RM. Disparities in rates of inpatient mortality and adverse events: race/ethnicity and language as independent contributors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(12):13017-34. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111213017
doi: 10.3390/ijerph111213017
pubmed: 25514153
pmcid: 4276659
John-Baptiste A, Naglie G, Tomlinson G, et al. The effect of English language proficiency on length of stay and in-hospital mortality. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):221-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.21205.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.21205.x
pubmed: 15009776
pmcid: 1492154
Khan A, Yin HS, Brach C, et al. Association Between Parent Comfort With English and Adverse Events Among Hospitalized Children. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(12):e203215. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3215
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3215
pubmed: 33074313
pmcid: 7573792
McDade JE, Olszewski AE, Qu P, et al. Association Between Language Use and ICU Transfer and Serious Adverse Events in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients Who Experience Rapid Response Activation. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:872060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.872060
doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.872060
pubmed: 35865710
pmcid: 9295993
Raff L, Moore C, Raff E. The role of language barriers on efficacy of rapid response teams. Hosp Pract (1995). 2023;51(1):29-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2022.2150416
doi: 10.1080/21548331.2022.2150416
pubmed: 36400063
van Rosse F, de Bruijne M, Suurmond J, Essink-Bot ML, Wagner C. Language barriers and patient safety risks in hospital care. A mixed methods study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.012
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.012
pubmed: 25840899
Benda NC, Fairbanks RJ, Higginbotham DJ, Lin L, Bisantz AM. Observational study to understand interpreter service use in emergency medicine: why the key may lie outside of the initial provider assessment. Emerg Med J. 2019;36(10):582-588. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2019-208420
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2019-208420
pubmed: 31320333
López L, Rodriguez F, Huerta D, Soukup J, Hicks L. Use of interpreters by physicians for hospitalized limited English proficient patients and its impact on patient outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(6):783-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3213-x
doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3213-x
pubmed: 25666220
pmcid: 4441652
Blay N, Ioannou S, Seremetkoska M, et al. Healthcare interpreter utilisation: analysis of health administrative data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):348. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3135-5
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3135-5
pubmed: 29747659
pmcid: 5946440
Lundin C, Hadziabdic E, Hjelm K. Language interpretation conditions and boundaries in multilingual and multicultural emergency healthcare. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0157-3
doi: 10.1186/s12914-018-0157-3
pubmed: 29866163
pmcid: 5987383
Medicaid CfMa. 87 FR 47824: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities. Office for Civil Rights, Office of the Secretary, Health and Human Services. Accessed 28 June 2023, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/04/2022-16217/nondiscrimination-in-health-programs-and-activities
Bayer-Oglesby L, Zumbrunn A, Bachmann N, Team S. Social inequalities, length of hospital stay for chronic conditions and the mediating role of comorbidity and discharge destination: A multilevel analysis of hospital administrative data linked to the population census in Switzerland. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0272265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272265
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272265
pubmed: 36001555
pmcid: 9401154
Cohen AL, Rivara F, Marcuse EK, McPhillips H, Davis R. Are language barriers associated with serious medical events in hospitalized pediatric patients? Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):575-9. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0521
doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0521
pubmed: 16140695
Credland N, Dyson J, Johnson MJ. Do early warning track and trigger tools improve patient outcomes? A systematic synthesis without meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(2):622-634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14619
doi: 10.1111/jan.14619
pubmed: 33128308
Cacciaglia A. Saving Lives with AI: Using the Deterioration Index Predictive Model to Help Patients Sooner. Accessed 30 June 2023, 2023. https://epicshare.org/share-and-learn/saving-lives-with-ai
Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan K, Nolan T, Norman C, Provost L. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
Goodman D, Ogrinc G, Davies L, et al. Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):e7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480
pubmed: 27076505
pmcid: 5256235
The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. NC Inpatient Patient Characteristics by Hospital 2021. Accessed 27 June 2023. https://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ptchar_all_and_by_hosp_2021_and.pdf .
Nelson LS. The shewhart control chart—tests for special causes. J Qual Technol. 1984;237–239.
Provost LP, Murray SK. The health care data guide: learning from data for improvement. John Wiley & Sons; 2022.
Chua WL, See MTA, Legio-Quigley H, Jones D, Tee A, Liaw SY. Factors influencing the activation of the rapid response system for clinically deteriorating patients by frontline ward clinicians: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(8):981-998. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzx149
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx149
pubmed: 29177454
pmcid: 6216047