How a Hospitalist Duo and a 1000-Person Multidisciplinary Team Changed Practice

Apr 25, 2019

Changing practice is personal. It doesn鈥檛 happen through edict or mandate. Changing practice requires ongoing respectful dialogue. It requires clear vision, data-driven analysis and the support of a dedicated team. Changing practice takes longer that you think it will. In this example, we recognize the power of a partnership in this challenging and important work.

By Kencee Graves, Devin Horton, Matt Sanford, Chrissy Daniels, and Mari Ransco | 7 minutes

THE CHALLENGE

Care redesign focused on a specific condition is often localized on specialty units. But what if the condition touches everyone in the system? Sepsis is a life-threatening, rapidly developing condition that can occur on any service or in any unit. Redesigning the system鈥檚 care of sepsis patients meant changing the practice of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and nurse aids with the support of IT and administrators.

SETTING THE STAGE

THE DUO

A partnership between two physicians is the foundation of this improvement effort. Devin Horton and Kencee Graves started as hospitalists at the 人妻中出视频 of Utah a year apart, after completing their training at Utah. Horton describes Graves as 鈥渟mart, a hard worker, totally organized,鈥� while Graves praises Horton for his 鈥渃reativity and vision.鈥� Horton and Graves sat in adjacent offices and frequently shared the travails of their first year as attending physicians.

Both were completely new to value improvement, when they decided to work on sepsis. Horton remembered 鈥淚 would be frustrated to see patients on consult service who had been decompensating for days鈥 thought there has to be a better way to do this.鈥� Horton heard a talk by , a renowned sepsis expert. Dellinger鈥檚 research and campaign indicated that recognition of sepsis and quickly administered therapy could save lives. 鈥淚 learned that sepsis is the #1 killer of hospitalized patients. It all came together for me, and I thought 鈥榟oly cow, I can鈥檛 believe no one is working on this.鈥欌€�

One afternoon, Horton wandered into Graves鈥� office while she was busily planning her first curriculum for a residency quality improvement program. 鈥淲ant to work on sepsis?鈥� Horton asked Graves. Graves said "Sure. What better way was there to learn quality improvement than to do it?鈥�

FINDING THE RIGHT RESOURCES TO START

First, Horton and Graves needed to define the problem. They knew the individual patient stories, but they needed data. How long did it take to request the right labs? How long for the labs results to return? How long to begin the correct medication? This was bigger than chart reviews. They needed BIG data, which meant finding a data steward.

After asking colleagues, they met John Arego, a quality data manager. Horton remembered 鈥淛ohn Arego was the key that opened up the hospital to us. Arego introduced us to groups we didn鈥檛 even know existed.鈥� Horton and Graves were connected to a network of support 鈥� quality consultants, value engineers, data managers. This assistance proved invaluable. Arego, quality consultants Tim Nelson and Russell Leslie, value engineers Collin Seabourne and Matt Sanford had the knowledge and social capital to guide a large project. They knew who to ask for information and how to motivate and lead the various subcultures of the hospital. They joined Horton and Graves on the leadership team.

BASELINE ANALYSIS REVEALS THE NEED FOR MORE TEAM MEMBERS

Baseline analysis to show more team members are needed — Description Variation in timing of key diagnostic tests and treatments. Care guidelines recommend all three of these steps are completed in 4 hours

SEPSIS EDUCATION SURVEY DATA

The sepsis treatment data revealed variation in practice across and within units. Some services and units were better than others at getting the right labs and treatment. But all units were outside of the recommended practice guidelines. Furthermore, the team also realized that physicians, nurses and nursing aids were unable to consistently recognize the tell-tale symptoms of sepsis. Based on the data, the team had two goals: standardize sepsis treatment and help clinicians recognize sepsis.

GOING ON THE ROAD: CHANGING PRACTICE

鈥婽he solution recommended by sepsis experts was an early warning system that dictated awareness of thresholds in specific vitals, followed by specific labs and then antibiotics delivered to the patient within an hour. The team designed a that would fire an alert in Epic, the electronic medical record. Epic scans all inpatient vitals and then (1-12). A score of 5 or above triggers a cascade of actions. Using an alert is an example of a forcing function, which is a mechanism built into the workflow to prevent specific errors or reduce their impact.鈥�

The team decided to pilot their protocol on the Acute Internal Medicine A unit (AIM-A). The team expanded to include front-line nurses, pharmacists and IT. Nurses Sunnie Hadley and Andrew Davies, Jenesy Starkey and Mikayla Davis joined the team. Pharmacist Russell Benefield and Infectious Disease physician Emily Spivak brought their expertise. IT project managers Dean Taylor and Dave Roach began working on Epic.

The team realized they would have to influence dozens of teams who were protective of their independence. Response treatment and expediency varied widely around the hospital. In order to standardize, Horton and Graves would need to convince them that the current care was not working and they needed to adopt a solution.

TOOLS TO CHANGE THE PRACTICE OF OTHERS

1. GAIN SUPPORT FROM KEY INDIVIDUALS (INDEPENDENTY OR IN SMALL GROUPS) AHEAD OF A LARGE GROUP MEETING AND BRING DATA DRIVEN ANALYSIS

Horton was acutely aware of how ideas could get heavily criticized in the large group meeting, so he wanted to take a different approach. Before attending a large meeting, Horton and Graves brought the data and the proposed protocol to individual physicians. He remembered,

鈥溾€here was some stronger personalities in our group. I had seen how other projects and ideas had gotten chewed up鈥nd I thought, maybe if I isolate this person or if I just go talk to them, we could have a conversation. These were people that I really respected and were frankly intimidating for me, so I just went and talked to them. I talked to them individually several times before we ever even presented to the hospitalist group because I knew that if those 2 or 3 personalities that were extremely smart and extremely respected in the group, then the group would go along."

Horton and Graves continued to take this approach with other physicians, nurses and pharmacists. They would meet individually or in small groups and present the data comparing current process to the proposed solution. Graves developed detailed analysis, and then Horton or Graves would meet with the services, working their way through the hospital.

Horton reflected on how other physicians responded to their request to change practice.

鈥溾€hey are reasonable. They care. They are really good doctors and they really care about their patients and their opinions come from a place of good positive pride and ownership of their patients and the system, not arrogance. They don鈥檛 want some bright-eyed knucklehead coming in and coming up with ideas that are going to hurt their patients. We would put a lot of work into preparing the data and maybe they didn鈥檛 believe it, but they would say 'wow, you guys have put a lot of work in this.鈥� They saw that we weren鈥檛 two knuckleheads, and I think that put them at ease.鈥�

2. PROPOSE FLEXIBLE CRITERIA WITH INFLEXIBLE IMPLEMENTATION

While the best practices model defined specific criteria of suspected sepsis, Horton and Graves used it as a starting place for conversation. Once a physician was ready to talk about solutions, Horton and Graves would ask for their opinion on the mEWS alert criteria and then incorporate their feedback.

Horton remembered how this worked with the hospitalists.

鈥淚 tried not to be too attached to any idea. I tried to make it theirs. If they really thought that something was really important, I would say, let鈥檚 put it in. By the time we finally presented to the hospitalist group their ideas were enmeshed in the protocol, and they just sat back and said 鈥榶eah, that鈥檚 a great idea鈥�.鈥� We could build our case, show them the data, and say 鈥榙o you want this on your floor?鈥� What set of vital signs worry you? Does a heart rate of 140 worry you? Should it be 160 before you鈥檙e alerted? You tell me, when do you start to get that feeling in your stomach that the patient sounds scary?鈥�

For physicians who were concerned that the mEWS alert would falsely identify too many patients, Horton and Graves suggested a temporary, non-intrusive trial. They temporarily added a mEWS column into Epic without implementing the protocol. Physicians could watch passively and see first-hand if the alert system returned false positives.

Horton remembered talking with a surgeon about the new protocol. The surgeon expressed frustration at the thought of instructing trainees to order more blood cultures and more chest x-rays, after spending a decade coaching them to order fewer. Now, the protocol was suggesting that more tests would have to be ordered for patients who possibly didn鈥檛 need it. Horton suggested adding the mEWS column so that the surgeon could see that the alert would identify few false positives.

When the physician leader agreed to adopt the protocol, the team worked with the nursing unit to implement. Implementation required specific steps that could not be skipped or missed (which the team had learned during their pilot). Each unit needed education, IT workflow, testing events and live training. Before a unit implemented the new protocol, the nurse manager and nurse educator met with Horton, Graves and Matt Sanford, the project鈥檚 value engineer. They would figure out the details of each unit鈥檚 implementation鈥攅ducation, call list, follow-up when the mEWS alert triggered.

PROJECT TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION GNATT CHART

3. DESIGN METHODS OF ONGOING ENGAGEMENT (ENGAGEMENT TAKES A LONG TIME)

As units implemented the new protocol, Horton, Graves, and the team established a review structure. Dr. Horton, Dr. Graves, Matt Sanford, and Epic IT support met with the unit鈥檚 nursing leadership and nurse educator every other week for six months. Their task was to review every time the mEWS alert fired. They discussed what went well and what didn鈥檛. Importantly, IT could fix problems with Epic immediately, during the meeting. The group would discuss physician engagement, and Horton and Graves would follow-up immediately if they needed to speak with a physician. After six months, the meetings moved to once a month. To date, attendance at these meetings has been 100%.

4. REPEAT STEPS 1-3 P.R.N.

It will take more meetings than you think.

THE METRICS

SEPSIS (MEWS >5) MEAN COST PER CASE AND PERFECT CARE

REFLECTION

After two years working on sepsis, Horton and Graves have enjoyed success and continued work. Now they have survival cases to talk about when they meet with people. 鈥淏eing able to show what we had done was really powerful in moving forward,鈥� Graves comments. 鈥淲e tell them 鈥榳e can do it again.鈥欌€�

Horton and Graves also value the addition of support from across the hospital. Graves reflects,

鈥淚 have been so impressed with our system鈥檚 support, responsiveness and empowerment鈥n another setting, some could have said, 鈥榳e don鈥檛 have value engineers, we don鈥檛 have a quality office, we can鈥檛 give you leadership support or an IT guy to help us change Epic.鈥� The fact that this hospital wants to become a better place has been fertile ground to do this project in鈥ts part of the institutional culture. We鈥檙e not the only ones who are this strong, everybody else is too.鈥�

THE VALUE EQUATION OF SEPSIS

Sepsis is a life-threatening infection that can kill within 48 hours. Severe sepsis is the leading cause of death at 人妻中出视频 of Utah. It accounts for 42% of Utah鈥檚 mortality. Sepsis is challenging to diagnose because its early symptoms are similar to other diagnoses. Early diagnosis and rapid treatment are key to survival.

Improving Utah鈥檚 care of sepsis patients has a strong value equation. Utah鈥檚 value equation is Value = Quality + Service/Cost. Introducing, implementing and spreading standard care guidelines could save 50 lives a year and reduce costs by decreasing length of stay. While the value proposition was straightforward, the team still struggled through stops and starts and years of work.

Improvement principle used: Forcing Function

LESSONS LEARNED: GOING ON THE ROAD TO CHANGE PRACTICE

Gaining support from key individuals (independently or in small groups) ahead of a large group meeting and bring data driven analysis.
Propose flexible criteria with inflexible implementation.
Design methods of ongoing engagement.
REPEAT steps 1-3 p.r.n.

View Process Map