Hand Washing compliance 100%

Hand hygiene 100% compliance at Ellis Hospitals. How did they do that?

Mary Ellen Crittenden, Vice President of Quality at Ellis told us that their board had a 'zero tolerance policy' for non-compliance.

They had a huge focus on clinician buy in and cultural issues developed over many months. They had 'secret shoppers' watching people and built it up the tempo gradually to a stage where they then announced a 'three strikes and you are out' policy.

If some one did not wash their hands:

first time - they were sent home with pay
second time - they were sent home without pay
third time - they were sent home and asked not to come back i.e. sacked

As an aside they had the same policy for their employed and visiting doctors, apparently they did not have to sack any of their more than 1000 doctors

Of course not all their deployments to improve quality were this harshly enforced.
Based on similar attitudes and healthcare lean methodology they have also achieved

495 continuous days without a single central line infection
0 - ZERO infections for hip surgery in whole of 2010 and till April 2011

They are looking forward to many other low or zeros soon (colonic surgery, caesarean sections, etc)

Ellis Hospital system in New York (http://www.ellismedicine.org/Home.aspx) is not exactly Mayo or Johns Hopkins but they have achieved great results.

When will we see this here at our work place? Most of us sooner or later are likely to end up as a patient in our local hospitals; well, it could happen tomorrow. We have to get it sorted before we occupy one of these beds!

The proven methods are available; we can do it if we want.

HEMADRI

PS: As recalled from what was heard at a conference in 2011

Homeostasis: The principle behind resistance to change. Doctors know all about it.

Homeostasis: The principle behind resistance to change. Doctors know all about it.

A software demo

In a session with a very enthusiastic innovator/early adopter group of people passionate about improvement; my own relationship with the group is they trust me but also find me intriguing; I offered the participants a particular software; the features of the software are as follows:

1) it was from a different producer and hence at a user level it was different (but not greatly different) from what they essentially use every day
2) it was at least 4 times quicker to switch on (pressing the button to start working with it) - this was proven to the group right in front of their eyes. It was also much quicker to shut down.
3) it does everything that their existing software does and it does more (with a little effort it will also run their existing software)
4) it is very stable - almost never crashes
5) it never gets a virus (not known so far in common use at least)
6) it is completely free (compared to £70 to £250 one off costs associated with their existing software)

The group consisted of 11 people. One person in the group who was already using it and vouched strongly for it.

Nobody (10 out of 10) said they would change to it; one person out of 10 said in a very tentative and cautious manner 'I would try it'. I have since tried with another group of nine people where again only one person said 'I will try it out'. This was the situation for a proven idea/software introduced by a 'trusted' peer.

Change management

Change management is a huge challenge. It is not just in the NHS alone (or may be it is) where we love or we may not love but we will continue to do things that are slow, unstable, complication prone and costly just because we are familiar with it (as an aside, in the NHS anyone who is suspected of doing even mildly unfamiliar things will be accused of behaving in a risky way). In this example of mine, it was only software - its kind of okay. Do we do this in our clinical practice? Though all of us would deny that, there is enough evidence that we show such unnecessarily resistant behaviour and very importantly we are actively supported in such behaviour by some of our authority holders.

There are specific ways of making changes happen and proven methods in healthcare are already available. Many of us are working on it. However, only when 8 out 10 people will be willing to hear, try and change easily for the purpose of improving the safety and quality we provide will be the day where we find Success in Healthcare!!

Change Management and Homeostasis

The origins of this behaviour is far deeper than we think. Most clinicians will be familiar with the concept of homeostasis; human bodies are created to 'maintain' a stable environment for themselves. If things are not working, the body restores it to get back to its previous normality. It is possible to achieve a new/different level of 'normality' (whether it is positive e.g. body building or negative e.g. dietary related obesity) even when there is nothing broken/ill, but for that the mind and body needs to put in specific additional effort - most of the time our mind and/or body does nothing of that kind (except of course in the case of children where there is a continuous effort voluntary and involuntary to achieve an improved status till they get to be adults). Further interestingly it is possible to achieve a newer level of normality on the negative side with not much effort at all but any positive change needs focused prolonged effort (refer back to the examples of obesity versus body building); to get unfit does not need effort, to get fit we need to work very hard.

In our work life, we display similar individual and organisational behaviours. We get to work with an explicit intention of doing a 'normal' days work. Fire-fighting - looking for things that are broken so badly that it will stop us from functioning and restore it to functional levels - we do that. We easily slip into bad habits and behaviours (e.g. employing people to run a bad process rather than redesigning the process) - we do that.

Only some of us take positive efforts to make changes to improve the service. There could be problems in that. Imagine this scenario - if our hospital was the equivalent of a relatively unhealthy human body and one particular organ, say the right arm decided to improve itself by getting fit and muscular - we will have an unfit obese hospital with a well developed strong muscular right arm. Now, is that normal or beautiful? Neither. So the right arm gives up sooner or later surely encouraged by the rest of the body which wants the right arm to 'fit in' with the majority.

How to resolve this issue?

Obviously if you are running an organisation and want to improve it you will be uncomfortable accepting a worsening scenario; justifying it by some logical argument about homeostasis would sound dubious. You may want to try to meaningfully measure the performance of various parts of your organisation and present it transparently. No one likes to be part of a worsening performance graph.

If there is then a desire to go ahead and do something to improve the situation you could refer to http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.com/2012/01/hemadris-four-fundamental-questions-for.html ; try to answer my four fundamental questions with a 'Yes'.

Hmmmm!!!!!

Fixing a big bleeding artery is probably a shade easier than change management but managing change is where the really interesting challenges are.


© HEMADRI

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

 

NB: I was comparing Ubuntu (Linux based) operating system versus Microsoft Vista as exists in my laptop computer on a dual boot. For personal use, I have been mostly using Ubuntu since January 2011 and have found it very good. Would you try it?

PS: I have nothing against Microsoft which has served me well over many years. As of date I have no vested interest in MS or Ubuntu or in any other software company.

COMPLICATIONS OR HARM AND THEIR IMPACTS

COMPLICATIONS OR HARM AND THEIR IMPACTS

M HEMADRI

'Complication' is such a sanitised word. When doctors and nurses speak about complications the language is purely technical, distant and mostly third party. When the complication comes true, it is of course none of those, it is very personal; physically and emotionally hurtful with huge trauma to to the sufferers and their families, in so many ways that we can never understand or even describe.

The following is about a series of extraordinary real life happenings that relates to a normal British person from Portsmouth and his family. The words are a cut and paste from the court judgement with a few minor changes to help normal reading.

-----------------------------------begin of cut & paste----------------------------

• The patient was aged 39. His father had for several years been undergoing kidney dialysis treatment and was suffering from renal failure. The patient was anxious to give his father the opportunity of a better quality of life in his well earned retirement by donating his own right kidney, thus sparing his father further dialysis treatment. The operation was performed on 26^th February 2008. The hospital admits that the operation was performed negligently, and to a degree recklessly. There are proceedings before the General Medical Council against the surgeon in question.

• The consequences of the hospital's negligence have been catastrophic for the patient and his family: physically, psychologically, emotionally and financially. Although the patient's right kidney was successfully removed and transplanted, the patient suffered irreversible failure of the left kidney. In fact he should never have been advised to undergo the operation at all given the grave dangers involved. That negligent advice was compounded by serial mistakes during the operation itself. The patient's life was saved only after many hours on the operating table during which he received over 100 units of blood and fluid transfusions.

• During the course of the operation the patient suffered further complications which have had far reaching consequences: a minor myocardial infarction; ischaemic damage to the bundle of nerves known as the lumbo-sacral plexus, which supply the right leg and foot; a thrombosis of the inferior vena cava.

• The patient was left in total renal failure. He was in hospital for nearly two months, during which he started to receive haemodialysis. He developed a serious drug induced confusional disorder. There were further re-admissions to hospital in March and April 2008, following which he received dialysis treatment three times a week as an outpatient for a year. This treatment affected him profoundly. He became severely depressed, frequently contemplating suicide. He contracted serious infections, one of which necessitated a further admission to hospital for four days in October 2008.

• The patient's own act of altruism and family devotion in donating a kidney to his father, which cost him so dear, was reciprocated by the patient's sister. With the same outstanding altruism and family devotion she in turn donated a kidney to the patient, at very considerable psychological and emotional cost. That operation, performed on 27^th March 2009, was successful. It released the patient from an indefinite regime of dialysis. However, he lives with the constant fear that his body will reject the kidney and it is common ground that when he reaches his early sixties that kidney will require replacement. This uncertainty, and his experiences generally, have left him with an understandable obsession about his health.

• Unfortunately a recurrent infection was imported with his sister's kidney, cytomegalovirus viraemia (CMV). This is a constant source of worry. So is his blood creatinine level which, if raised, can be a sign of kidney rejection.

• The renal failure the patient suffered increases significantly the risk that he will suffer from ischaemic heart disease and a stroke. Consequently he adopts a very careful lifestyle and diet. He has had high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels which cause him constant worry. The immuno-suppressant drugs he takes, in particular to control the CMV, greatly increase the risk of his developing other debilitating and life threatening conditions. The consequence is that he has become fastidious to the point of obsessional about personal and general hygiene, which impacts upon the whole family. He can be irritable and overbearing. He is prone to bouts of weeping.

• There are further serious physical consequences. The nerve damage suffered during the negligent operation has resulted in altered sensation below the right knee. There is hyper-sensitivity, pain and loss of sensation in various parts of the right foot, and clawing of the first and second toes. He has had surgery on the first toe. Further surgery had been planned to straighten and fuse the toes but this drastic measure may be avoided by regular injection of botulinum toxin for life. The issue surrounding this problem with his foot has a bearing on his residual earning capacity. Currently he is unable to run, and walking on uneven ground and stairs presents some difficulty.

• The patient has also been much distressed by urinary difficulties. For a time self- catheterisation was attempted. He found it a dreadful experience. Urinary frequency bedevils his daily life, and results in broken nights for him and for his wife.

• The medication he takes has had unpleasant side-effects including the profuse growth of unwanted body hair, the development of skin acneiform lesions and the deposit of facial and abdominal fat. His inability to exercise has also led to undesirable weight gain. Prior to the operation, the patient was a healthy, fit and active 35 year old man. He took great pride in his health and fitness, running several kilometres each morning to set himself up for the working day. He had enormous energy. He was cheerful, optimistic and extrovert.

• Now the picture is very different. At the age of 39 his daily life revolves around his health worries. He is constantly fearful of infection or changes which may increase the risk of the kidney being rejected. Any venturing from the strictly enforced hygiene of the home is fraught with anxiety. He lives with the certain knowledge that the kidney will require replacement by the time he reaches the age of 61 and that this will be preceded by symptoms of progressive renal failure. It is agreed that his life expectancy has been reduced by 10 years.

• The patient's wife says that the patient is a shadow of his former self. He is lacking in energy. He is exhausted by 9 pm and generally has to be in bed by 10 pm. He is moody and irritable. Their marriage, though very strong, is constantly under strain. The children have been affected and distressed by their father's condition and behaviour and he has bridges to build there.

-----------------End of cut and paste------------------------------

The above example was of course extraordinary, further the issue reached the court of law otherwise we would not have heard it in such a profound and full sense. It might have reached us through the press in which case we would have discounted it for journalistic embellishment. In reality most if not every healthcare related 'complication' has impacts on patients' lives which are significant but we will never hear about it.

Perhaps it is time to start describing some of the possible known effects of complications on patient's lives should be described in a way that it really affects patients lives. Let me explain. Do you think the hospitals, doctors or nurses when explaining or consenting patients for surgery ever tell them 'if you had one of the severe complications your marriage could be constantly under strain; your children could be affected and distressed by your condition and behaviour and your may need bridges to be built with them as a result''?

For instance When we talk about surgery on blood vessels in the limb we mention 'amputation' as a possibility. Does that really describe anything to a patient who has never experienced or seen amputation before? Perhaps we ought to tell them how in the initial days even to move from side to side in a bed they would need support, their entire body will need to put in daily heroic effort to cope, they will not be able to do any sort of work for many months, if everything goes well it will hurt during wound healing, during dressing change, during physio, during limb fitting, when using the limb. When goes wrong it will hurt more, more often and for longer – if it goes wrong even more it will hurt every day of their lives (phantom limb pain). They will need to know that the pain will need strong pain killers, strong pain killers will cause constipation, constipation could cause fissure which will hurt even more. They would need to know that if the wound breaks down their raw cut bone could stick out. Well, even after these descriptions we haven’t even made a start on the long list and impacts in a proper way!! These are only physical.

Perhaps we need to tell them that they may not be able to drive a normal car; the pain could drive them to become an alcoholic if they are lucky and a drug addict if they are unlucky. Perhaps they need to know that their family and friends will provide sympathy which the patient could misinterpret and end up feeling patronised resulting in phenomenally strained relationships all around.

God help us avoid complications.

Complications are true complications only when every effort at our command is made to avoid them from happening and yet they happened, otherwise it cannot be called a complication; it is called harm. As an illustration, if a patient developed deep vein thrombosis due to omitted drug thromboprophylaxis, poor mobilisation, poor hydration or pelvic injury at surgery that DVT is healthcare caused harm; similarly if a spinal or epidural catheter was removed without regard to when chemical thromboprophylaxis was given and the patient developed spinal cord problems, that would be harm caused by heal. DVT prevention is an easy example, there are thousands of other ways that healthcare's omissions, commissions and disagreements hurt patients; they can no longer be euphemistically called complications any longer.

Here is something uncomfortable, a number of these problems happen because of us (organisation or individuals) though we are often unable to even recognise that.

Once again, the impacts of complications on peoples lives is something that healthcare professionals would not be able to even begin to understand, or describe. There are specific tried and tested methods to avoid harm or to reduce them to their minimum possible. Most healthcare providers do not have to do world beating cutting edge stuff, they only have to put in some effort to just avoid harm in healthcare. If it was done that would count as Success in Healthcare.

© HEMADRI

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

Ref: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/xyz-judgment-14022011.pdf

Hemadri's Four Fundamental Questions for Clinical Quality Improvement

Hemadri's 4 fundamental questions for Clinical Quality Improvement

1) Do you have local clinicians' agreement on clinical healthcare delivery? (Doing the same thing by all professionals in the same manner for the same condition)

2) Are you measuring the right things in the right manner? (Measuring process and outcomes over time)

3) Do you have a human approach to leadership and management? (In other words do your staff love you, do your patients love you? Working with and enjoying ambiguity and limitations)

4) Can you prove meaningfully that you have shared to others and you have learned from others within your organisation? (Proof that every individual does whole system improvement)


To some of you these four questions might sound like cliches. To some of you these might be stating the blindingly obvious. The questions are not 'lay'; they are highly technical questions with strong theories and some practical examples behind them. There are specific and explicit frameworks, methods and techniques to explore these questions and then to make them happen.

There is a general impression that healthcare does all the four well; especially if you work in healthcare you may be tempted to answer 'Yes' to all the four questions. You may even proceed to argue and 'prove' it. There is much evidence that healthcare in general lacks all the above four. The chances are it will be surprising if many areas of healthcare delivery had even one of these. But once these questions can be answered with a real 'Yes' healthcare leaps into a bright better zone.

Success in Healthcare can be found only if the the answers to all the four questions can be a clearly demonstrated 'YES'.

We explore these at the CQI to some extent. I am hoping that over a period of time I should be able to blog about these things in specific detail rather than in broad general terms. Perhaps even write a book.

© HEMADRI

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

Presenteeism

Presenteeism

I believe this is the opposite of absenteeism. This is when people are ill but still turn up to work to reduce productivity. It costs Australia $6billion. http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/jobs/presenteeism-is-the-new-workplace-problem/story-e6freqo6-1225846154602 

Hold on, its not a peculiarly Australian problem. We have it too. 20% of NHS staff have reported coming to work even when they are ill. http://www.nhshealthandwellbeing.org/pdfs/Interim%20Report%20Appendices/Staff%20Perception%20Survey%20%28Quantitative%29.pdf Before you pat yourself on the back on some perceived altruism or hyper-sincerity, please remember that in the insurance business 45% of staff come to work when they are ill http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/04/16/55251/presenteeism-at-axa-ppp-more-problematic-than-sickness-absence-report-finds.html .

Its not just the people who are off sick who decrease productivity; people who are at work but who should not be, also reduce productivity. Please share your view on how you deal with this issue in your place of work. I wonder if the recent sickness counselors we have appointed in the NHS will identify persons who should not be there and send them home to rest properly!

Mortality 1998 & Now - What can we learn?

Mortality 1998 and now: What can we learn?

I found these 4 pages full of 30 day hospital mortality rates from 1998 – 1999 which you find below the write up (you may have to print it, if you want to look at it as you go along). Those were the days before HSMR (though retrospective calculations should be available). Some powerful details are jumping out.

DATA STATUS

This look at the data has some limitations in the sense that a snapshot of 1998 – 1999 is being compared to the most recent three years rather than for the whole period 1998 to 2011. So it is not a true performance over time that I advocate. Having said that, I feel that the lessons are still valuable based on the logic that if you are in the same place or in a worse place than in 1998 there has been no improvement either relative or absolute which is in general true (though in a purely technical sense that may not always strictly be the case for some hospitals). Also, I have only looked at some highlighting examples rather than a detailed research type of analysis so there may be other good examples that I have not looked at (possibly some place like Harrogate perhaps).

The current status was ascertained from dr Foster’s website in end of Dec 2011 and early Jan 2012.


Remaining where they were

Page one you will find Scunthorpe in the first section/small-medium hospitals rating at the higher end and it remains in the higher end.

East Yorkshire Hospitals rate is high (page 1). On page two you will find Hull Royal rates are high. They are now the HEY NHS Trust and are high currently.

Medway, Dartford and Gravesham remain at the higher end (currently in the highest 10 mortality)

Basildon and Mid Staffs remain at the higher end (page 1)

University Hospital Birmingham rates are at the higher end then as they are now (page 3)

Interestingly Bolton more or less remain where they were – nearer to the higher end of the spectrum.

Interestingly again, Luton more or less remain where they were - in the middle.

On page three under acute teaching hospitals; you will find that Chelsea & Westminster are low in 1998 as they are now.

Moving to a high mortality

North East Lincs (DPoW) seems to have moved from a low mortality to current high mortality.

There are some hospitals like George Elliot and Morecambe Bay who seem to have moved from somewhere in the middle to current higher rates of mortality.

Moving to a low mortality

In page one and page two you will find Birmingham Heartlands, Solihull and Good Hope (on page one) all of which form the HEFT, having a high mortality in 1998 but now have below 100 HSMR over 3 years and could be sited as a case of consistent improvement over time. They still not a ‘low’ mortality hospital though.

Bradford has moved from the higher end to very low mortality.

On page three you will find Kings and St Georges at the very high end in 1998 but are now very clearly in the lower end over a three year period. Page 4 has Airedale which was towards the higher end at that time, now for a good many years they are a low mortality hospital.




 
LESSONS (My personal interpretations)

As a generalisation, many hospitals tend to remain where they are. This is not unusual. I think I have already written about how it is human nature and natural physiology to maintain status quo. The difficulty is when a high mortality hospital remains high where status quo is not a good situation to be in.

It is possible to move from low to high mortality.

It is possible to move from high to low mortality (Bradford, Airedale).

The popular examples may not always be the really the improved ones (Bolton and Luton are popular).

Though mortality is a good headline important measure it is well linked up with good performances in other areas of safety and quality.

As an aside,
It seems to me that (once service configuration changes are explained) most of the improvement is related to the change and improving cultures of the organisation who act in a pro-active (rather than reactive way) - I have not provided reasoning and justification for my assertion here.

From a general reading around this I find that hospitals tend to take the CQC more seriously than dr Foster (or other companies analysing and reporting on mortality) – again I have not provided reasoning and justification for my assertion here.


Whom should we learn from?

If we do the learning circuits we will hear Luton. We will also hear often from Bolton especially about the lean systems. Till recently George Eliot was also doing the rounds talking about improvement. I have attended many of these presentations and have found them very useful from an educational and knowledge perspective.

From a political perspective it is relevant to learn from the experiences of University Hospitals Birmingham who ably withstood the bad press that they had in 2011 (whose CE Julia Moore was recently became Dame Julia Moore) and HEFT whose CE Dr Mark Goldman was seen to leave HEFT following bad press at Solihull (http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-health-news/2011/07/20/former-heartlands-hospital-boss-lands-new-nhs-role-in-worcestershire-65233-29083826/ ; but Dr Goldman was reported as having ‘turned around’ hospitals and as being ‘wise’ in the Worcester area http://www.worcesterstandard.co.uk/2011/08/04/story-Wise-figure-takes-charge-of-hospitals-13829.html . It is probable that the cultures in these two Birmingham trusts are very different even though geographically they are not apart from each other. Political learning is very important as it is about perceptions, how people see them and how to handle them.

From a persistent long term improvement perspective we certainly need to learn more from HEFT, Kings, St Georges, Bradford and Airedale.

I am sure that there are many examples in each category that I have not looked into who are equally improved (or not as the case may be); hence the above is just a sample of what attracted my attention and not a thorough analysis.

This is certainly interesting but you ought to tell me if it provides any more insight.

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets