elective cardioversion at leeds general infirmary 2013-2015 andrew hogarth, craig russell, saagar...
TRANSCRIPT
Elective Cardioversion at Leeds General Infirmary 2013-2015Andrew Hogarth, Craig Russell, Saagar Mahida, Reza RasoolAlexandra Pike
What we did What we changed How it has improved service
DCCV at LGI pre Sept 2013
Elective list most weeks
Consultant Cardiac Anaesthetist present
Cardioversions carried out by SpR covering SJUH. ◦ Different operator each week
◦ Different methods (voltages, K+ criteria etc)◦ Different documentation – no standard place to document – except in notes◦ List delayed by SpR◦ Cardiobase not used. ◦ Inconsistent.
Aims: To provide a better quality service:
◦ Specialist nurse led◦ Consistency◦ Improved documentation/audit trail◦ Free up SJUH SpR time
Step 1:
AUDIT of procedure to date
Audit (Early 2013)Looked at:
Rate of successful restoration of sinus rhythm
Number of shocks delivered
Any documented complications from procedure
….in a series of 100 consecutive elective cardioversions done from Jan 2012. (Cardiobase data system entries examined)
Possible Complications Thromboembolism (1-2%) – higher if inadequate anticoagulation
Brady or Tachyarrhythmia◦ Increased if K+ low◦ Increased if shock not correctly ‘R’ synchronised◦ Increased if digitalis toxicity
Skin Burns
Failure of procedure
Anaesthetic complications
Results 100 cases
◦ 48 cases – 1 shock◦ 22 cases – 2 shocks◦ 4 cases – 3 shocks◦ 2 cases – 4 shocks◦ 24 cases – no documentation of number of shocks.
◦ 78 successful◦ 19 unsuccessful◦ 3 already in sinus before DCCV
◦ NO MAJOR COMPLICATIONS DOCUMENTED
Conclusions, Sept 2013 A safe procedure – no major complications
Acutely successful in approximately 80%
No major complications◦ ? necessary to have cardiac anaesthetist and cardiology SpR present
Large number of senior cardiologists in neighbouring rooms.
Observation of poor documentation in notes and on Cardiobase system◦ Poor discharge plan communication◦ Inconsistent approach◦ Not always a procedure report◦ ?INR/K+ checked (causes of infrequent but potentially serious complication)
Recommendations, 2013
Potential to improve quality by introducing uniform protocol delivered by Nurse specialist
Safe procedure to be carried out by appropriately trained Nurse Specialist
Design a protocol
Bespoke proforma to be added to Cardiobase to improve documentation
Re –audit to prove non inferiority and markers of service quality improvement after 100 nurse led cardioversions.
STEP 2:
Negotiation
Training
Protocol
STEP 3: Re-audit (2014)
1 year on Protocol introduced
◦ Based on current guidelines
Arrhythmia nurse main operator in all 109 cases
Cardiobase module for ‘Elective DCR’
Results of re-audit 109 cases
◦ 78 cases – 1 shock◦ 21 cases – 2 shocks◦ 9 cases – 3 shocks◦ 1 cases – 4 shocks
104 successful
4 unsuccessful
1 already in sinus before DCCV
Results Complications recorded
◦ 2 transient bradycardias – one settled spontaneously, one required atropine due to haemodynamic instability
◦ 1 documented burn to chest wall – a recognised complications that is consented for◦ 1 increased in ventricular pacing threshold – a recognised complication when
cardioverting in the presence of a pacemaker.
No major adverse events
Events similar to those above may have occurred before but there was no space to document them.
Data now on Cardiobase. Easier to view for follow up and audit purposes.
Documentation of pre op assessment (INR and K+ levels)
Training of SHOs
Conclusions 2014 Completion of the audit cycle shows that changes implemented have not led to any major adverse events
Documentation has been significantly improved.
The new service has released more SpR time.
Procedure carried out according to guidelines.
Increased rate of successful cardioversions.
More training of CMTs/SHOs
It’s safe and effective
STEP 4: Is it valued by patients and staff?
Nurse led DC cardioversion patient satisfaction survey
Surveys given to patients attending for elective outpatient cardioversion
Jubilee Wing LGI Cath lab
Survey based on a validated patient satisfaction survey
Autumn 2014
Results 32 responses
Surveys fully completed except 4 which were partially completed.
All included in results
Completely satisfi
ed
Somewhat satisfi
ed
Neutral
Somewhat diss
atisfied
Completely dissatisfi
ed0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Preparing for the procedure
Informed consent/explanation of your procedure Opportunity to meet the operator
Completely satisfi
ed
Somewhat satisfi
ed
Neutral
Somewhat diss
atisfied
Completely dissatisfi
ed0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
During the procedure
Explanation while preparing you for cardioversion Level of attention you received
Level of professionalism of the nurses Level of safety checks
Level of professionalism of the anaesthetists
Completely sa
tisfied
Somewhat s
atisfied
Neutral
Somewhat d
issatisfi
ed
Completely diss
atisfied
not answ
ered/m
issing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
After the procedure
Explanation of results of the procedure Staff response to your questions
Courtesy and respect you were given Explanation of follow up or other options to treatment
Discharge information Overall satisfaction of procedure from start to finish
Yes No not answered/missing0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Patient recommendations
Would you recommend the nursing staff to other patients?
Would you recommend the anaesthetists to other patients?
Would you recomment this Cath Lab to other patients?
Patient free comments
“My complete satisfaction with everything is not the result of the anaesthetic, it is a sincere reflection of my appreciation of my treatment in the Jubilee Wing. Without exception the nursing and other staff are so cheerful and pleasant to deal with” MB 17/11/14
Conclusions Excellent feedback from patients regarding their DC cardioversion experience before, during and after the procedure.
Patients like it
Nurse led DC cardioversion serviceStaff satisfaction survey resultsDECEMBER 2014
Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nurse delivered cardioversion is safe
Nurses HCA Doctor Anaesthtist Admin staff Unknown/other
Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10Nurse delivered cardioversion has improved patient expe-
rience
Nurses HCA Doctor Anaesthtist Admin staff Unknown/other
Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nurse delivered cardioversion has improved staff experience on L14
Nurses HCA Doctor Anaesthtist Admin staff Unknown/other
Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nurse delivered cardioversion has improved anaesthetist's experience
Nurses HCA Doctor Anaesthtist Admin staff Unknown/other
Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nurse delivered cardioversion has enhanced continuity of care of these patients
Nurses HCA Doctor Anaesthtist Admin staff Unknown/other
Nurse led DCCV at LGI (2015)• Safe• Efficient• Effective•High Quality
◦ Valued by patients ◦ Valued by Staff◦ Valued by trainees
Challenges ANS support
Anaesthetic availability
2015 waiting time 8-12 weeks