ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Quality improvement collaborative for improving patient care delivery in Argentine public health sector intensive care units.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe demand for healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic was excessive for less-resourced settings, with intensive care units (ICUs) taking the heaviest toll.
objectiveThe aim was to achieve adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) use in 90% of patient encounters, to reach 90% compliance with objectives of patient flow (OPF) and to provide emotional support tools to 90% of healthcare workers (HCWs).
methodsWe conducted a quasi-experimental study with an interrupted time-series design in 14 ICUs in Argentina. We randomly selected adult critically ill patients admitted from July 2020 to July 2021 and active HCWs in the same period. We implemented a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) with a baseline phase (BP) and an intervention phase (IP). The QIC included learning sessions, periods of action and improvement cycles (plan-do-study-act) virtually coached by experts via platform web-based activities. The main study outcomes encompassed the following elements: proper utilisation of PPE, compliance with nine specific OPF using daily goal sheets through direct observations and utilisation of a web-based tool for tracking emotional well-being among HCWs.
resultsWe collected 7341 observations of PPE use (977 in BP and 6364 in IP) with an improvement in adequate use from 58.4% to 71.9% (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29, p<0.001). We observed 7428 patient encounters to evaluate compliance with 9 OPF (879 in BP and 6549 in IP) with an improvement in compliance from 53.9% to 67% (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32, p<0.001). The results showed that HCWs did not use the support tool for self-mental health evaluation as much as expected.
conclusionA QIC was effective in improving healthcare processes and adequate PPE use, even in the context of a pandemic, indicating the possibility of expanding QIC networks nationwide to improve overall healthcare delivery. The limited reception of emotional support tools requires further analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.