cusp 4 mvp – vap exposure receipt assessment 1: aggregated results (cohort 1)
DESCRIPTION
CUSP 4 MVP – VAP Exposure Receipt Assessment 1: Aggregated Results (Cohort 1). Kisha Ali, MS Roshanak Hakimian. October 8, 2014. Exposure Receipt Assessment. Metric d esigned to close the gap between hospital unit leads and frontline providers - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CUSP 4 MVP – VAPExposure Receipt Assessment 1: Aggregated Results (Cohort 1)
Kisha Ali, MS
Roshanak Hakimian
October 8, 2014
2
Exposure Receipt Assessment
• Metric designed to close the gap between hospital unit leads and frontline providers
• Purpose is to help identify and work with teams to provide needed training, resources, or other aids
• Pioneered in the CUSP for VAP Maryland and Pennsylvania Pilot Project– paper based
• Evolved for CUSP4MVP-VAP – now electronic, questions reflect most updated evidence for VAE prevention
3
Exposure Receipt Assessment
• Metric allows the implementation components of the project to be quantified
• Data provided directly by front-line staff with direct-patient care
• In congruence with the Implementation Assessment - tools are complementary
• Assessment
– consist of solely quantitative questions
– Anonymous
– Semi-annual
• Supports improvement efforts of individual units
4
Unit Participation:Results of Compliance
Participation Overall:
- Aggregated results from Cohort 1
- Administered 3 months into the project (May – Jun 2014)
- 593 observations
- 7 states
Participation by State: Coordinating Entity (n= # of units)
Number of Front-line Staff that Completed ERA
Contribution to Result Data (%)
UHC (n= 2) 90 15.18MHA Keystone (n=19) 201 33.91Texas (n= 7) 157 26.48New Jersey (n=13) 76 12.82Tennessee (n = 9) 69 11.64South Carolina (n= 6) 0 0Independent (n= 1) 0 0
5
Exposure Receipt Assessment Measures
• Results divided into 3 categories based on question type to
allow similar components to be examined together. The
categorical measures are as follows:
1. Distribution of participants
2. CUSP Components of the intervention
3. MVP-VAP Components of the intervention
6
Distribution of Participants
What is your role in the Unit?
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
7
CUSP Components of the Intervention
How familiar are you with CUSP?
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
8
CUSP Components of the Intervention
Do you have a CUSP team on your unit?
Has CUSP been active at improving patient safety?
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
9
CUSP Components of the Intervention
Have you watched a Science of Safety presentation
Have you completed a Staff Safety Assessment
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
10
CUSP Components of the Intervention
Have you used the Learning from Defects tool?
For how many patients has your unit used Daily Goals?
11
Summary:CUSP Components of the Intervention
• The majority of units participating in Cohort 1 are familiar with
CUSP
• Half the units have CUSP teams, but only 50% of those teams
are active, and even less are using all the CUSP tools
• Overall, providers believe that these teams are somewhat active
at improving patient safety.
• Penetrance and use of the tools, Staff Safety Assessment and
Science of Safety, are high
• Penetrance and use of the tools, Learning from Defects and
Daily Goals, are low
12
MVP - VAP Components of theIntervention
Do you know your unit’s VAP or VAE rate(s)?
13
MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention
Which of these interventions are being used by your Unit and how often?
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
14
MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention
Do you believe that the interventions in MVP-VAP bundle will help to prevent VAE on your Unit?
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
15
MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention
In your opinion, which of the following interventions are most likely to prevent VAE? (Select 3)
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
16
MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention
In your opinion, where is the biggest opportunity to improve care of mechanically ventilated patients in your unit?
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Un
its
17
Summary: VAP Components of the Intervention
• Overwhelming proportion of front-line providers believe
the technical interventions prevent VAE
• Most front-line staff know their VAE rates
• All 6 MVP-VAP bundle interventions measured are being
used at least 50% of the time
• Providers believe early mobility represents the biggest
opportunity to improve care for MVP
18
Conclusion
• Results represent the perspective of 593 front-line clinicians surveyed in the Exposure Receipt Assessment 1 for Cohort 1
• Units will soon be able to track implementation successes and barriers over time via CECity platform
• Assessments will continue to be administered semi-annually
– Next ERA assessment will be administered Nov. 2014
• This assessment helps identify
– Additional opportunities for education and training on the unit
– Bridges the gap in information
– Areas of success
• Remember to involve your font-line staff in the CUSP4MVP-VAP project
19
Thank you!
Questions?