Hospital Medicine

From the University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO (Haley Crosby); Department of Clinical Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO (Dr. Pierce); and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD (Dr. Regunath).

ABSTRACT

Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) improve outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis (IE), but methods of implementation vary. In our academic medical center, we developed an MDT approach guided by a clinical care pathway and assessed outcomes of patients with IE.

Methods: We compared outcomes of patients with IE and indications for surgery between December 2018 and June 2020 with our prior published data for the period January to December 2016. MDT interventions involved recurring conferences with infectious diseases physicians in team meetings and promoting a clinical care pathway to guide providers on steps in management. Primary outcomes were surgery and in-hospital death.

Results: Prior to the intervention, 6 of 21 (28.6%) patients with indications for surgery underwent surgery or were transferred to higher centers for surgery, and 6 (28.6%) patients died. Post intervention, 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients underwent or were transferred for surgery, and 5 (16.1%) died. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) compared with the pre-intervention period. The odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21).

Conclusion: An MDT team approach using a clinical pathway was associated with an increased number of surgeries performed for IE and may lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: infective endocarditis, clinical pathway, quality improvement, multidisciplinary team, valve surgery.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.¹ Rates of IE due to Staphylococcus aureus are increasing in the United States.² Reported in-hospital mortality from IE ranges from 15% to 20%.³Optimal management of IE requires input from a number of specialties, including infectious diseases (ID), cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), oromaxillofacial surgery, radiology (eg, nuclear medicine), and neurology, among others, depending on the site of complications. Guidelines from the United States and Europe recommend incorporating multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the management of IE.^1,3-5 These recommendations are based on quasi-experimental before-and-after studies that have consistently demonstrated that MDTs reduce in-hospital and 1-year mortality.^6-11 However, implementation of MDTs can be challenging. Successful MDTs require good team dynamics, unified participation, and seamless communication among team members.

Clinical pathways are defined as “structured, multidisciplinary plans of care used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem.”¹² In the modern era, these pathways are often developed and implemented via the electronic health record (EHR) system. Studies of clinical pathways generally demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes, quality of care, or resource utilization.^13,14 Clinical pathways represent 1 possible approach to the implementation of a MDT in the care of patients with IE.¹⁵

In our earlier work, we used quality improvement principles in the design of an MDT approach to IE care at our institution.¹⁶ Despite having indications for surgery, 12 of 21 (57.1%) patients with IE did not undergo surgery, and we identified these missed opportunities for surgery as a leverage point for improvement of outcomes. With input from the various specialties and stakeholders, we developed a clinical pathway (algorithm) for the institutional management of IE that guides next steps in clinical care and their timelines, aiming to reduce by 50% (from 57.1% to 28.6%) the number of patients with IE who do not undergo surgery despite guideline indications for early surgical intervention. In this report, we describe the implementation of this clinical pathway as our MDT approach to the care of patients with IE at our institution.

Methods

The University of Missouri, Columbia, is a tertiary care academic health system with 5 hospitals and more than 60 clinic locations across central Missouri. In the spring of 2018, an MDT was developed, with support from administrative leaders, to improve the care of patients with IE at our institution. The work group prioritized one leverage point to improve IE outcomes, which was improving the number of surgeries performed on those IE patients who had guideline indications for surgery. A clinical pathway was developed around this leverage point (Figure 1). The pathway leveraged the 6 T’s (Table 1) to guide providers through the evaluation and management of IE.¹⁷ The pathway focused on improving adherence to standards of care and reduction in practice variation by defining indications for referrals and diagnostic interventions, helping to reduce delays in consultation and diagnosis. The pathway also clearly outlined the surgical indications and timing for patients with IE and provided the basis for decisions to proceed with surgery.

Starting in late 2018, in collaboration with cardiology and CTS teams, ID specialists socialized the clinical pathway to inpatient services that cared for patients with IE. Infectious diseases physicians also provided recurring conferences on the effectiveness of MDTs in IE management and participated in heart-valve team case discussions. Finally, in May 2019, an electronic version of the pathway was embedded in the EHR system using a Cerner PowerChart feature known as Care Pathways. The feature presents the user with algorithm questions in the EHR and provides recommendations, relevant orders, timelines, and other decision support in the clinical pathway. The feature is available to all providers in the health system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, we recorded outcomes for patients with IE with surgical indications between December 2018 and June 2020 and compared them with our prior published data from January to December 2016. Cases of IE for the current study period were identified via retrospective chart review. Records from December 2018 to June 2020 were searched using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) discharge codes for IE (I33, I33.0, I33.9, I38, I39, M32.11). To select those patients with definitive IE and indications for surgery, the following criteria were applied: age ≥ 18 years; fulfilled modified Duke criteria for definite IE¹⁸; and met ≥ 1 American Heart Association (AHA)/Infection Diseases Society of America criteria for recommendation for surgery. Indications for surgery were ≥ 1 of the following: left-sided endocarditis caused by S aureus, fungal, or highly resistant organism; new heart block; annular or aortic abscess; persistent bacteremia or fever despite 5 days of appropriate antimicrobials; vegetation size ≥ 10 mm and evidence of embolic phenomena; recurrence of prosthetic valve infection; recurrent emboli and persistent vegetation despite antimicrobials; and increase in vegetation size despite antimicrobials.¹⁶

Age was treated as a categorical variable, using the age groups 18 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. Gender was self-reported. Primary outcomes were surgery or transfer to a higher center for surgery and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included consults to teams involved in multidisciplinary care of patients with IE, including ID, cardiology, and CTS. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson χ² tests. Odds ratios for surgery and death were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including age and gender covariates. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using Stata/IC v16.1 (StataCorp LLC). Our university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the project (#2010858-QI) and determined that the project was quality-improvement activity, not human subject research, and therefore did not require additional IRB review.

Results

We identified 21 patients in the pre-intervention period and 31 patients in the postintervention period with definitive IE who had guideline indications for surgery. The postintervention cohort was older and had more male patients; this difference was not statistically significant. No differences were noted between the groups for race, gender, or intravenous (IV) drug use (Table 2). Chi-square tests of independence were performed to assess the relationship between age and our primary outcomes. There was a significant relationship between age and the likelihood of receiving or being transferred for surgery (59.3% vs 50% vs 7.7% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ² [2, N = 52] = 9.67; P = .008), but not between age and mortality (14.8% vs 25.0% vs 30.8% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ²  = 1.48 [2, N = 52; P = .478]. The electronic version of the clinical pathway was activated and used in only 3 of the 31 patients in the postintervention period. Consultations to ID, cardiology, and CTS teams were compared between the study periods (Table 2). Although more consultations were seen in the postintervention period, differences were not statistically significant.

The unadjusted primary outcomes are shown in Table 2. More surgeries were performed per guideline indications, and fewer deaths were noted in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Because the postintervention period had more male patients and older patients, we evaluated the outcomes using a logistic regression model controlling for both age and gender. The odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) as compared with the pre-intervention period, and the odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period compared with the pre-intervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21) (Figure 2).

Discussion

In our study, patients with IE with guideline indications for surgery had significantly higher rates of surgery in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period. The implementation of an MDT, recurring educational sessions, and efforts to implement and familiarize team members with the clinical pathway approach are the most likely reasons for this change. The increased rates of surgery in the postintervention period were the likely proximate cause of the 60% reduction in in-hospital mortality. This improvement in mortality, while not statistically significant, is very likely to be clinically significant and helps reinforce the value of the MDT intervention used.

Our findings are consistent with existing and mounting literature on the use of MDTs to improve outcomes for patients with IE, including 2 studies that noted an increased rate of surgery for patients with indications.^8,19 Several other studies in both Europe and North America have found significant decreases in mortality,^6-11,20,21 rates of complications,⁹ time to diagnosis and treatment,¹¹ and length of stay^9,20 for patients with IE managed with an MDT strategy. Although current AHA guidelines for care of patients with IE do suggest an MDT approach, the strategy for this approach is not well established.²² Only 1 study that has implemented a new MDT protocol for care of IE has been conducted in the United States.⁸

While effective MDTs certainly improve outcomes in patients with IE, there are reported differences in implementation of such an approach. With the MDT model as the core, various implementations included regular case conferences,^{10,11,19,21,23} formation of a consulting team,^6,8 or establishment of a new protocol or algorithm for care.^8,9,20 Our approach used a clinical pathway as a basis for improved communication among consulting services, education of learning providers via regular case conferences, and implementation of an electronic clinical care pathway to guide them step by step. Our pathway followed the institutionally standardized algorithm (Figure 1), using what we called the 6 T’s approach (Table 1), that guides providers to evaluate critical cases in a fast track.¹⁷

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report of an MDT that used an electronic clinical care pathway embedded within the EHR. The electronic version of our clinical pathway went live for only the second half of the postintervention study period, which is the most likely reason for its limited utilization. It is also possible that educational efforts in the first half of the intervention period were sufficient to familiarize providers with the care pathway such that the electronic version was seldom needed. We are exploring other possible ways of improving electronic pathway utilization, such as improving the feature usability and further systemwide educational efforts.

Our study has other limitations. Quasi-experimental before-and-after comparisons are subject to confounding from concurrent interventions. We had a substantial change in cardiothoracic faculty soon after the commencement of our efforts to form the MDT, and thus cannot rule out differences related to their comfort level in considering or offering surgery. We also cannot rule out a Hawthorne effect, where knowledge of the ongoing quality-improvement project changed provider behavior, making surgery more likely. We did not evaluate rates of right- versus left-sided endocarditis, which have been linked to mortality.²⁴ Our study also was performed across a single academic institution, which may limit its generalizability. Finally, our study may not have been adequately powered to detect differences in mortality due to implementation of the MDT approach.

Conclusion

Our work suggests that an MDT for IE can be successfully designed and implemented with a clinical pathway using quality-improvement tools in centers where subspecialty services are available. Our approach was associated with a higher rate of surgery among patients with guideline indications for surgery and may reduce in-hospital mortality. An electronic clinical care pathway embedded in the EHR is feasible and may have a role in MDT implementation.

These data were also accepted as a poster at IDWeek 2022, Washington, DC. The poster abstract is published in an online supplement of Open Forum Infectious Diseases as an abstract publication.

Corresponding author: Haley Crosby; hwc2pd@health.missouri.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO (Haley Crosby); Department of Clinical Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO (Dr. Pierce); and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD (Dr. Regunath).

ABSTRACT

Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) improve outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis (IE), but methods of implementation vary. In our academic medical center, we developed an MDT approach guided by a clinical care pathway and assessed outcomes of patients with IE.

Methods: We compared outcomes of patients with IE and indications for surgery between December 2018 and June 2020 with our prior published data for the period January to December 2016. MDT interventions involved recurring conferences with infectious diseases physicians in team meetings and promoting a clinical care pathway to guide providers on steps in management. Primary outcomes were surgery and in-hospital death.

Results: Prior to the intervention, 6 of 21 (28.6%) patients with indications for surgery underwent surgery or were transferred to higher centers for surgery, and 6 (28.6%) patients died. Post intervention, 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients underwent or were transferred for surgery, and 5 (16.1%) died. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) compared with the pre-intervention period. The odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21).

Conclusion: An MDT team approach using a clinical pathway was associated with an increased number of surgeries performed for IE and may lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: infective endocarditis, clinical pathway, quality improvement, multidisciplinary team, valve surgery.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.¹ Rates of IE due to Staphylococcus aureus are increasing in the United States.² Reported in-hospital mortality from IE ranges from 15% to 20%.³Optimal management of IE requires input from a number of specialties, including infectious diseases (ID), cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), oromaxillofacial surgery, radiology (eg, nuclear medicine), and neurology, among others, depending on the site of complications. Guidelines from the United States and Europe recommend incorporating multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the management of IE.^1,3-5 These recommendations are based on quasi-experimental before-and-after studies that have consistently demonstrated that MDTs reduce in-hospital and 1-year mortality.^6-11 However, implementation of MDTs can be challenging. Successful MDTs require good team dynamics, unified participation, and seamless communication among team members.

Clinical pathways are defined as “structured, multidisciplinary plans of care used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem.”¹² In the modern era, these pathways are often developed and implemented via the electronic health record (EHR) system. Studies of clinical pathways generally demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes, quality of care, or resource utilization.^13,14 Clinical pathways represent 1 possible approach to the implementation of a MDT in the care of patients with IE.¹⁵

In our earlier work, we used quality improvement principles in the design of an MDT approach to IE care at our institution.¹⁶ Despite having indications for surgery, 12 of 21 (57.1%) patients with IE did not undergo surgery, and we identified these missed opportunities for surgery as a leverage point for improvement of outcomes. With input from the various specialties and stakeholders, we developed a clinical pathway (algorithm) for the institutional management of IE that guides next steps in clinical care and their timelines, aiming to reduce by 50% (from 57.1% to 28.6%) the number of patients with IE who do not undergo surgery despite guideline indications for early surgical intervention. In this report, we describe the implementation of this clinical pathway as our MDT approach to the care of patients with IE at our institution.

Methods

The University of Missouri, Columbia, is a tertiary care academic health system with 5 hospitals and more than 60 clinic locations across central Missouri. In the spring of 2018, an MDT was developed, with support from administrative leaders, to improve the care of patients with IE at our institution. The work group prioritized one leverage point to improve IE outcomes, which was improving the number of surgeries performed on those IE patients who had guideline indications for surgery. A clinical pathway was developed around this leverage point (Figure 1). The pathway leveraged the 6 T’s (Table 1) to guide providers through the evaluation and management of IE.¹⁷ The pathway focused on improving adherence to standards of care and reduction in practice variation by defining indications for referrals and diagnostic interventions, helping to reduce delays in consultation and diagnosis. The pathway also clearly outlined the surgical indications and timing for patients with IE and provided the basis for decisions to proceed with surgery.

Starting in late 2018, in collaboration with cardiology and CTS teams, ID specialists socialized the clinical pathway to inpatient services that cared for patients with IE. Infectious diseases physicians also provided recurring conferences on the effectiveness of MDTs in IE management and participated in heart-valve team case discussions. Finally, in May 2019, an electronic version of the pathway was embedded in the EHR system using a Cerner PowerChart feature known as Care Pathways. The feature presents the user with algorithm questions in the EHR and provides recommendations, relevant orders, timelines, and other decision support in the clinical pathway. The feature is available to all providers in the health system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, we recorded outcomes for patients with IE with surgical indications between December 2018 and June 2020 and compared them with our prior published data from January to December 2016. Cases of IE for the current study period were identified via retrospective chart review. Records from December 2018 to June 2020 were searched using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) discharge codes for IE (I33, I33.0, I33.9, I38, I39, M32.11). To select those patients with definitive IE and indications for surgery, the following criteria were applied: age ≥ 18 years; fulfilled modified Duke criteria for definite IE¹⁸; and met ≥ 1 American Heart Association (AHA)/Infection Diseases Society of America criteria for recommendation for surgery. Indications for surgery were ≥ 1 of the following: left-sided endocarditis caused by S aureus, fungal, or highly resistant organism; new heart block; annular or aortic abscess; persistent bacteremia or fever despite 5 days of appropriate antimicrobials; vegetation size ≥ 10 mm and evidence of embolic phenomena; recurrence of prosthetic valve infection; recurrent emboli and persistent vegetation despite antimicrobials; and increase in vegetation size despite antimicrobials.¹⁶

Age was treated as a categorical variable, using the age groups 18 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. Gender was self-reported. Primary outcomes were surgery or transfer to a higher center for surgery and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included consults to teams involved in multidisciplinary care of patients with IE, including ID, cardiology, and CTS. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson χ² tests. Odds ratios for surgery and death were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including age and gender covariates. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using Stata/IC v16.1 (StataCorp LLC). Our university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the project (#2010858-QI) and determined that the project was quality-improvement activity, not human subject research, and therefore did not require additional IRB review.

Results

We identified 21 patients in the pre-intervention period and 31 patients in the postintervention period with definitive IE who had guideline indications for surgery. The postintervention cohort was older and had more male patients; this difference was not statistically significant. No differences were noted between the groups for race, gender, or intravenous (IV) drug use (Table 2). Chi-square tests of independence were performed to assess the relationship between age and our primary outcomes. There was a significant relationship between age and the likelihood of receiving or being transferred for surgery (59.3% vs 50% vs 7.7% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ² [2, N = 52] = 9.67; P = .008), but not between age and mortality (14.8% vs 25.0% vs 30.8% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ²  = 1.48 [2, N = 52; P = .478]. The electronic version of the clinical pathway was activated and used in only 3 of the 31 patients in the postintervention period. Consultations to ID, cardiology, and CTS teams were compared between the study periods (Table 2). Although more consultations were seen in the postintervention period, differences were not statistically significant.

The unadjusted primary outcomes are shown in Table 2. More surgeries were performed per guideline indications, and fewer deaths were noted in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Because the postintervention period had more male patients and older patients, we evaluated the outcomes using a logistic regression model controlling for both age and gender. The odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) as compared with the pre-intervention period, and the odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period compared with the pre-intervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21) (Figure 2).

Discussion

In our study, patients with IE with guideline indications for surgery had significantly higher rates of surgery in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period. The implementation of an MDT, recurring educational sessions, and efforts to implement and familiarize team members with the clinical pathway approach are the most likely reasons for this change. The increased rates of surgery in the postintervention period were the likely proximate cause of the 60% reduction in in-hospital mortality. This improvement in mortality, while not statistically significant, is very likely to be clinically significant and helps reinforce the value of the MDT intervention used.

Our findings are consistent with existing and mounting literature on the use of MDTs to improve outcomes for patients with IE, including 2 studies that noted an increased rate of surgery for patients with indications.^8,19 Several other studies in both Europe and North America have found significant decreases in mortality,^6-11,20,21 rates of complications,⁹ time to diagnosis and treatment,¹¹ and length of stay^9,20 for patients with IE managed with an MDT strategy. Although current AHA guidelines for care of patients with IE do suggest an MDT approach, the strategy for this approach is not well established.²² Only 1 study that has implemented a new MDT protocol for care of IE has been conducted in the United States.⁸

While effective MDTs certainly improve outcomes in patients with IE, there are reported differences in implementation of such an approach. With the MDT model as the core, various implementations included regular case conferences,^{10,11,19,21,23} formation of a consulting team,^6,8 or establishment of a new protocol or algorithm for care.^8,9,20 Our approach used a clinical pathway as a basis for improved communication among consulting services, education of learning providers via regular case conferences, and implementation of an electronic clinical care pathway to guide them step by step. Our pathway followed the institutionally standardized algorithm (Figure 1), using what we called the 6 T’s approach (Table 1), that guides providers to evaluate critical cases in a fast track.¹⁷

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report of an MDT that used an electronic clinical care pathway embedded within the EHR. The electronic version of our clinical pathway went live for only the second half of the postintervention study period, which is the most likely reason for its limited utilization. It is also possible that educational efforts in the first half of the intervention period were sufficient to familiarize providers with the care pathway such that the electronic version was seldom needed. We are exploring other possible ways of improving electronic pathway utilization, such as improving the feature usability and further systemwide educational efforts.

Our study has other limitations. Quasi-experimental before-and-after comparisons are subject to confounding from concurrent interventions. We had a substantial change in cardiothoracic faculty soon after the commencement of our efforts to form the MDT, and thus cannot rule out differences related to their comfort level in considering or offering surgery. We also cannot rule out a Hawthorne effect, where knowledge of the ongoing quality-improvement project changed provider behavior, making surgery more likely. We did not evaluate rates of right- versus left-sided endocarditis, which have been linked to mortality.²⁴ Our study also was performed across a single academic institution, which may limit its generalizability. Finally, our study may not have been adequately powered to detect differences in mortality due to implementation of the MDT approach.

Conclusion

Our work suggests that an MDT for IE can be successfully designed and implemented with a clinical pathway using quality-improvement tools in centers where subspecialty services are available. Our approach was associated with a higher rate of surgery among patients with guideline indications for surgery and may reduce in-hospital mortality. An electronic clinical care pathway embedded in the EHR is feasible and may have a role in MDT implementation.

These data were also accepted as a poster at IDWeek 2022, Washington, DC. The poster abstract is published in an online supplement of Open Forum Infectious Diseases as an abstract publication.

Corresponding author: Haley Crosby; hwc2pd@health.missouri.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO (Haley Crosby); Department of Clinical Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO (Dr. Pierce); and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD (Dr. Regunath).

ABSTRACT

Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) improve outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis (IE), but methods of implementation vary. In our academic medical center, we developed an MDT approach guided by a clinical care pathway and assessed outcomes of patients with IE.

Methods: We compared outcomes of patients with IE and indications for surgery between December 2018 and June 2020 with our prior published data for the period January to December 2016. MDT interventions involved recurring conferences with infectious diseases physicians in team meetings and promoting a clinical care pathway to guide providers on steps in management. Primary outcomes were surgery and in-hospital death.

Results: Prior to the intervention, 6 of 21 (28.6%) patients with indications for surgery underwent surgery or were transferred to higher centers for surgery, and 6 (28.6%) patients died. Post intervention, 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients underwent or were transferred for surgery, and 5 (16.1%) died. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) compared with the pre-intervention period. The odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21).

Conclusion: An MDT team approach using a clinical pathway was associated with an increased number of surgeries performed for IE and may lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: infective endocarditis, clinical pathway, quality improvement, multidisciplinary team, valve surgery.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.¹ Rates of IE due to Staphylococcus aureus are increasing in the United States.² Reported in-hospital mortality from IE ranges from 15% to 20%.³Optimal management of IE requires input from a number of specialties, including infectious diseases (ID), cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), oromaxillofacial surgery, radiology (eg, nuclear medicine), and neurology, among others, depending on the site of complications. Guidelines from the United States and Europe recommend incorporating multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the management of IE.^1,3-5 These recommendations are based on quasi-experimental before-and-after studies that have consistently demonstrated that MDTs reduce in-hospital and 1-year mortality.^6-11 However, implementation of MDTs can be challenging. Successful MDTs require good team dynamics, unified participation, and seamless communication among team members.

Clinical pathways are defined as “structured, multidisciplinary plans of care used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem.”¹² In the modern era, these pathways are often developed and implemented via the electronic health record (EHR) system. Studies of clinical pathways generally demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes, quality of care, or resource utilization.^13,14 Clinical pathways represent 1 possible approach to the implementation of a MDT in the care of patients with IE.¹⁵

In our earlier work, we used quality improvement principles in the design of an MDT approach to IE care at our institution.¹⁶ Despite having indications for surgery, 12 of 21 (57.1%) patients with IE did not undergo surgery, and we identified these missed opportunities for surgery as a leverage point for improvement of outcomes. With input from the various specialties and stakeholders, we developed a clinical pathway (algorithm) for the institutional management of IE that guides next steps in clinical care and their timelines, aiming to reduce by 50% (from 57.1% to 28.6%) the number of patients with IE who do not undergo surgery despite guideline indications for early surgical intervention. In this report, we describe the implementation of this clinical pathway as our MDT approach to the care of patients with IE at our institution.

Methods

The University of Missouri, Columbia, is a tertiary care academic health system with 5 hospitals and more than 60 clinic locations across central Missouri. In the spring of 2018, an MDT was developed, with support from administrative leaders, to improve the care of patients with IE at our institution. The work group prioritized one leverage point to improve IE outcomes, which was improving the number of surgeries performed on those IE patients who had guideline indications for surgery. A clinical pathway was developed around this leverage point (Figure 1). The pathway leveraged the 6 T’s (Table 1) to guide providers through the evaluation and management of IE.¹⁷ The pathway focused on improving adherence to standards of care and reduction in practice variation by defining indications for referrals and diagnostic interventions, helping to reduce delays in consultation and diagnosis. The pathway also clearly outlined the surgical indications and timing for patients with IE and provided the basis for decisions to proceed with surgery.

Starting in late 2018, in collaboration with cardiology and CTS teams, ID specialists socialized the clinical pathway to inpatient services that cared for patients with IE. Infectious diseases physicians also provided recurring conferences on the effectiveness of MDTs in IE management and participated in heart-valve team case discussions. Finally, in May 2019, an electronic version of the pathway was embedded in the EHR system using a Cerner PowerChart feature known as Care Pathways. The feature presents the user with algorithm questions in the EHR and provides recommendations, relevant orders, timelines, and other decision support in the clinical pathway. The feature is available to all providers in the health system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, we recorded outcomes for patients with IE with surgical indications between December 2018 and June 2020 and compared them with our prior published data from January to December 2016. Cases of IE for the current study period were identified via retrospective chart review. Records from December 2018 to June 2020 were searched using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) discharge codes for IE (I33, I33.0, I33.9, I38, I39, M32.11). To select those patients with definitive IE and indications for surgery, the following criteria were applied: age ≥ 18 years; fulfilled modified Duke criteria for definite IE¹⁸; and met ≥ 1 American Heart Association (AHA)/Infection Diseases Society of America criteria for recommendation for surgery. Indications for surgery were ≥ 1 of the following: left-sided endocarditis caused by S aureus, fungal, or highly resistant organism; new heart block; annular or aortic abscess; persistent bacteremia or fever despite 5 days of appropriate antimicrobials; vegetation size ≥ 10 mm and evidence of embolic phenomena; recurrence of prosthetic valve infection; recurrent emboli and persistent vegetation despite antimicrobials; and increase in vegetation size despite antimicrobials.¹⁶

Age was treated as a categorical variable, using the age groups 18 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. Gender was self-reported. Primary outcomes were surgery or transfer to a higher center for surgery and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included consults to teams involved in multidisciplinary care of patients with IE, including ID, cardiology, and CTS. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson χ² tests. Odds ratios for surgery and death were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including age and gender covariates. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using Stata/IC v16.1 (StataCorp LLC). Our university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the project (#2010858-QI) and determined that the project was quality-improvement activity, not human subject research, and therefore did not require additional IRB review.

Results

We identified 21 patients in the pre-intervention period and 31 patients in the postintervention period with definitive IE who had guideline indications for surgery. The postintervention cohort was older and had more male patients; this difference was not statistically significant. No differences were noted between the groups for race, gender, or intravenous (IV) drug use (Table 2). Chi-square tests of independence were performed to assess the relationship between age and our primary outcomes. There was a significant relationship between age and the likelihood of receiving or being transferred for surgery (59.3% vs 50% vs 7.7% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ² [2, N = 52] = 9.67; P = .008), but not between age and mortality (14.8% vs 25.0% vs 30.8% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ²  = 1.48 [2, N = 52; P = .478]. The electronic version of the clinical pathway was activated and used in only 3 of the 31 patients in the postintervention period. Consultations to ID, cardiology, and CTS teams were compared between the study periods (Table 2). Although more consultations were seen in the postintervention period, differences were not statistically significant.

The unadjusted primary outcomes are shown in Table 2. More surgeries were performed per guideline indications, and fewer deaths were noted in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Because the postintervention period had more male patients and older patients, we evaluated the outcomes using a logistic regression model controlling for both age and gender. The odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) as compared with the pre-intervention period, and the odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period compared with the pre-intervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21) (Figure 2).

Discussion

In our study, patients with IE with guideline indications for surgery had significantly higher rates of surgery in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period. The implementation of an MDT, recurring educational sessions, and efforts to implement and familiarize team members with the clinical pathway approach are the most likely reasons for this change. The increased rates of surgery in the postintervention period were the likely proximate cause of the 60% reduction in in-hospital mortality. This improvement in mortality, while not statistically significant, is very likely to be clinically significant and helps reinforce the value of the MDT intervention used.

Our findings are consistent with existing and mounting literature on the use of MDTs to improve outcomes for patients with IE, including 2 studies that noted an increased rate of surgery for patients with indications.^8,19 Several other studies in both Europe and North America have found significant decreases in mortality,^6-11,20,21 rates of complications,⁹ time to diagnosis and treatment,¹¹ and length of stay^9,20 for patients with IE managed with an MDT strategy. Although current AHA guidelines for care of patients with IE do suggest an MDT approach, the strategy for this approach is not well established.²² Only 1 study that has implemented a new MDT protocol for care of IE has been conducted in the United States.⁸

While effective MDTs certainly improve outcomes in patients with IE, there are reported differences in implementation of such an approach. With the MDT model as the core, various implementations included regular case conferences,^{10,11,19,21,23} formation of a consulting team,^6,8 or establishment of a new protocol or algorithm for care.^8,9,20 Our approach used a clinical pathway as a basis for improved communication among consulting services, education of learning providers via regular case conferences, and implementation of an electronic clinical care pathway to guide them step by step. Our pathway followed the institutionally standardized algorithm (Figure 1), using what we called the 6 T’s approach (Table 1), that guides providers to evaluate critical cases in a fast track.¹⁷

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report of an MDT that used an electronic clinical care pathway embedded within the EHR. The electronic version of our clinical pathway went live for only the second half of the postintervention study period, which is the most likely reason for its limited utilization. It is also possible that educational efforts in the first half of the intervention period were sufficient to familiarize providers with the care pathway such that the electronic version was seldom needed. We are exploring other possible ways of improving electronic pathway utilization, such as improving the feature usability and further systemwide educational efforts.

Our study has other limitations. Quasi-experimental before-and-after comparisons are subject to confounding from concurrent interventions. We had a substantial change in cardiothoracic faculty soon after the commencement of our efforts to form the MDT, and thus cannot rule out differences related to their comfort level in considering or offering surgery. We also cannot rule out a Hawthorne effect, where knowledge of the ongoing quality-improvement project changed provider behavior, making surgery more likely. We did not evaluate rates of right- versus left-sided endocarditis, which have been linked to mortality.²⁴ Our study also was performed across a single academic institution, which may limit its generalizability. Finally, our study may not have been adequately powered to detect differences in mortality due to implementation of the MDT approach.

Conclusion

Our work suggests that an MDT for IE can be successfully designed and implemented with a clinical pathway using quality-improvement tools in centers where subspecialty services are available. Our approach was associated with a higher rate of surgery among patients with guideline indications for surgery and may reduce in-hospital mortality. An electronic clinical care pathway embedded in the EHR is feasible and may have a role in MDT implementation.

These data were also accepted as a poster at IDWeek 2022, Washington, DC. The poster abstract is published in an online supplement of Open Forum Infectious Diseases as an abstract publication.

Corresponding author: Haley Crosby; hwc2pd@health.missouri.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (all authors), and Cognosante, LLC, Falls Church, VA (Dr. Murray, Dr. Sawyer, and Jessica Fankhauser).

Abstract

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented leadership challenges to health care organizations worldwide, especially those on the journey to high reliability. The objective of this pilot quality improvement initiative was to describe the experiences of medical center leaders continuing along the journey to high reliability during the pandemic.

Methods: A convenience sample of Veterans Health Administration medical center directors at facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability prior to or during the COVID-19 pandemic were asked to complete a confidential survey to explore the challenges experienced and lessons learned.

Results: Of the 35 potential participants, 15 completed the confidential web-based survey. Five major themes emerged from participants’ responses: (1) managing competing priorities, (2) staying committed, (3) adapting and overcoming, (4) prioritizing competing demands, and (5) maintaining momentum.

Conclusion: This pilot quality improvement initiative provides some insight into the challenges experienced and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to help inform health care leaders’ responses during crises they may encounter along the journey to becoming a high reliability organization.

Keywords: HRO, leadership, patient safety.

Health care leaders worldwide agree that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented one of the most challenging leadership tests encountered in many generations,^1,2 creating a widespread crisis of unprecedented scope and scale for health care systems globally.^2,3 COVID-19 has posed many challenges and obstacles for health care leaders, including overworked, overstressed, and socially isolated employees; expedited hiring to ensure adequate staffing; reallocation of employees to other units; supply shortages such as personal protective equipment; changing polices related to safety protocols; modifying operations; reorganizing facilities to care for large volumes of critically ill patients; and ethical challenges.^4-8 Health care systems were required to create and implement new clinical, operational, and staffing protocols that extended capabilities far beyond conventional standards of care and crisis response operations.⁹ To provide a picture of the impact of COVID-19 on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), as of March 3, 2023, the VHA has fully vaccinated more than 4.7 million individuals, including 4.3 million veterans and 320,936 federal employees.^10,11

Maintaining continuous progress toward advancing high reliability organization (HRO) principles and practices can be especially challenging during crises of unprecedented scale such as the pandemic. HROs must be continually focused on achieving safety, quality, and efficiency goals by attending to the 3 pillars of HRO: culture, leadership, and continuous process improvement. HROs promote a culture where all staff across the organization watch for and report any unsafe conditions before these conditions pose a greater risk in the workplace. Hospital leaders, from executives to frontline managers, must be cognizant of all systems and processes that have the potential to affect patient care.¹² All of the principles of HROs must continue without fail to ensure patient safety; these principles include preoccupation with failure, anticipating unexpected risks, sensitivity to dynamic and ever-changing operations, avoiding oversimplifications of identified problems, fostering resilience across the organization, and deferring to those with the expertise to make the best decisions regardless of position, rank, or title.^12,13 Given the demands faced by leaders during crises with unprecedented disruption to normal operating procedures, it can be especially difficult to identify systemic challenges and apply lessons learned in a timely manner. However, it is critical to identify such lessons in order to continuously improve and to increase preparedness for subsequent crises.^13,14

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s unprecedented nature in recent history, a review of the literature produced little evidence exploring the challenges experienced and lessons learned by health care leaders, especially as it relates to implementing or sustaining HRO journeys during the COVID-19 pandemic. Related literature published to date consists of editorials on reliability, uncertainty, and the management of errors¹⁵; patient safety and high reliability preventive strategies¹⁶; and authentic leadership.¹⁷ Five viewpoints were published on HROs and maladaptive stress behaviors,¹⁸ mindful organizing and organizational reliability,¹⁹ the practical essence of HROs,²⁰ embracing principles of HROs in crisis,⁸ and using observation and high reliability strategies when facing an unprecedented safety threat.²¹ Finally, the authors identified 2 studies that used a qualitative research approach to explore leadership functions within an HRO when managing crises²² and organizational change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.²³ Due to the paucity of available information, the authors undertook a pilot quality improvement (QI) initiative to address this knowledge gap.

The aim of this initiative was to gain a better understanding of the challenges experienced, lessons learned, and recommendations to be shared by VHA medical center directors (MCDs) of health care facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors hope that this information will help health care leaders across both governmental and nongovernmental organizations, nationally and globally, to prepare for future pandemics, other unanticipated crises (eg, natural disasters, terrorist attacks), and major change initiatives (eg, electronic health record modernization) that may affect the delivery of safe, high-quality, and effective patient care. The initiative is described using the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines.^24,25

Methods

Survey

We used a qualitative approach and administered a confidential web-based survey, developed by the project team, to VHA MCDs at facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey consisted of 8 participant characteristic questions (Table 1) and 4 open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were designed to encourage MCD participants to freely provide detailed descriptions of the challenges experienced, lessons learned, recommendations for other health care leaders, and any additional information they believed was relevant.^26,27 Participants were asked to respond to the following items:

1. Please describe any challenges you experienced while in the role of MCD at a facility that initiated implementation of HRO principles and practices prior to (February 2020) or during (March 2020–September 2021) the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. What are some lessons that you learned when responding to the COVID-19 pandemic while on the journey to high reliability?
2. What recommendations would you like to make to other health care leaders to enable them to respond effectively to crises while on the journey to high reliability?
3. Please provide any additional information that would be of value.

An invitation to participate in this pilot QI initiative was sent via e-mail to 35 potential participants, who were all MCDs at Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 facilities. The invitation was sent on June 17, 2022, by a VHA senior High Reliability Enterprise Support government team member not directly involved with the initiative. The participants were given 3 weeks to complete the survey. A reminder was sent at the end of week 1 and the beginning of week 3. The VHA MCDs from Cohort 1 (n = 17) began the HRO journey in February 2019 and those in Cohort 2 (n = 18) initiated the HRO journey in October 2020. Because the VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the potential participants were geographically dispersed. Examples of locations in Cohort 1 include Manchester Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in New Hampshire, Ralph H. Johnson VAMC in Charleston, South Carolina, and Boise VAMC, in Idaho. Examples of Cohort 2 locations include Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, Marion VAMC in Indiana, and John D. Dingell VAMC in Detroit, Michigan.

The invitation included the objective of the initiative, estimated time to complete the confidential web-based survey, time allotted for responses to be submitted, and a link to the survey should potential participants agree to participate. Potential participants were informed that their involvement was voluntary, based on their willingness to participate and available time to complete the survey. Finally, the invitation noted that any comments provided would remain confidential and nonattributional for the purpose of publishing and presenting. The inclusion criteria for participation were: (1) serving in the role of MCD of an organization that initiated implementation of HRO principles and practices prior to (February 2020) or during (March 2020–September 2021) the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) voluntary participation; and (3) thorough responses provided to the 4 open-ended and 8 participant characteristic questions, according to the instructions provided.

Data Gathering and Analysis

To minimize bias and maintain neutrality at the organizational level, only non-VHA individuals working on the project were directly involved with participants’ data review and analysis. Participant characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Responses to the 4 open-ended questions were coded and analyzed by an experienced researcher and coauthor using NVivo 11 qualitative data analysis software.²⁸ To ensure trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) in the data analysis procedure,²⁹ inductive thematic analysis was also performed manually using the methodologies of Braun and Clarke (Table 2)³⁰ and Erlingsson and Brysiewicz.³¹ The goal of inductive analysis is to allow themes to emerge from the data while minimizing preconceptions.^32,33 Regular team meetings were held to discuss and review the progress of data collection and analysis. The authors agreed that the themes were representative of the participants’ responses.

Institutional review board (IRB) review and approval were not required, as this project was a pilot QI initiative. The intent of the initiative was to explore ways to improve the quality of care delivered in the participants’ local care settings and not to generalize the findings. Under these circumstances, formal IRB review and approval of a QI initiative are not required.³⁴ Participation in this pilot QI initiative was voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without consequences. Completion of the survey indicated consent. Confidentiality was ensured at all times by avoiding both the use of facility names and the collection of participant identifiers. Unique numbers were assigned to each participant. All comments provided by survey participants remained confidential and nonattributional for the purpose of publishing and presenting.

Results

Of the 35 potential participants, 15 VHA MCDs (43%) completed the confidential web-based survey. Out of the 17 potential participants in Cohort 1, 6 (35%) completed the survey. With Cohort 2, 9 (50%) of the potential 18 participants responded. Although saturation was reached at 10 responses, the additional completed surveys were included in the analysis. Saturation can be achieved with a small number of participants (n = 9–17), particularly when the potential participants are relatively homogenous and project aims are narrowly defined.³⁵ Most participants had more than 10 years of executive-level experience and most medical centers had been on the journey to high reliability for more than 12 months at the time of the pandemic (Table 3). Five major themes emerged from the participants’ responses: (1) managing competing priorities, (2) staying committed, (3) adapting and overcoming, (4) prioritizing competing demands, and (5) maintaining momentum. In the following sections, the numbers in parentheses after the direct quotes represent the unique numbers assigned to the participant providing the response.

Managing Competing Priorities

When analyzing the responses to question 1, a recurring theme from 7 participants (Cohort 1, n = 4; Cohort 2, n = 3) related to challenges encountered while continuing the journey to high reliability during COVID-19 was managing competing priorities. Although most participants reported extensive previous leadership experience, some did not feel prepared for the complexity, uncertainty, challenges, and multitude of competing priorities facing the journey to high reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic. One participant succinctly noted:

“There were too many competing priorities dealing with the pandemic and staffing crisis.” (Participant 8)

Other participants shared:

“We had our HRO mentor designated just as our first peak was descending on us. It was initially challenging to determine the proper pace of implementation when we clearly had other things going on. There was a real risk that people would say, ‘What, are you kidding?’ as we tried to roll this out.” (Participant 4)

“Prior to COVID, our main challenges were getting organized and operational rollout. During the pandemic, we had to shift our focus to COVID and the training aspects suffered. Also, many other priorities pulled us away from an HRO rollout focus.” (Participant 6)

Staying Committed

When examining the question 2 responses, 1 theme that resonated most when it came to lessons learned, shared by 6 participants (Cohort 1, n = 4; Cohort 2, n = 2), was the need to stay committed to HRO, despite the unprecedented crisis at hand. A number of participants eloquently noted how important it was stay committed to the HRO journey during the COVID-19 pandemic:

“If you don’t need a highly reliable organization during a crisis, when do you need it? That was the message that we kicked off with. It was also VERY important to take things slowly. Education had to be done in bits, and we had a much more modest timeline than what would have been the norm for any initiative pre-COVID. The emphasis was on this being a long-term commitment, that we would be doing it the right way rather than rushing it, etc.” (Participant 4)

“Keeping HRO principles and a Just Culture on the forefront of our minds, we looked for opportunities to progress on our HRO journey, despite the challenges of the pandemic. Our monthly Town Halls became weekly events to share COVID updates and information with staff. We used the Town Halls to promote our HRO mission and to open communication lines with staff, designating 1 week each month as a ‘Safety Forum.’ The pandemic provided the springboard and backdrop for staff Safety Stories submissions, many of which were shared at our Town Halls and Safety Forums.” (Participant 7)

“We were able to utilize HRO principles in response to the COVID pandemic. Specifically standardized communication from the facility to VISN [Veterans Integrated Services Network] was initiated on a daily basis. This practice provided daily communication on key operational items and clinical items at the medical center, allowed timely feedback on actions being taken, as was instrumental in daily checks on staffing, COVID testing supplies, overall supply chain issues.” (Participant 9)

Adapting and Overcoming

The recommendations provided by 10 participants (Cohort 1, n = 6; Cohort 2, n = 4) for other health care leaders experiencing a crisis during the journey to high reliability were insightful. The themes that frequently emerged from the responses to the survey were to adapt and overcome. Participants shared:

“Utilize the many tools you’re given, specifically your team. Try even the craziest ideas from frontline staff.” (Participant 1)

“Use your mentors for younger directors and, even if you think you know the answer, involve your staff. It makes them feel they have a voice and gives them ownership of the issues.” (Participant 5)

“Make sure that you have key leaders in place who are committed to HRO and can help the organization adjust.” (Participant 6)

“Take advantage of HRO Leader Coaching, which pairs MCDs with coaches who act as consultants for HRO leadership practices to ensure progress in reaching the next level in the journey to High Reliability.” (Participant 7)

“Meet regularly with the HRO Lead and team (more frequently during early stages of implementation) to provide support, eliminate barriers, and champion the HRO mission. It is important to include other members of the ELT [Executive Leadership Team] to ensure their involvement with the facility HRO strategic plan.” (Participant 7)

“Prioritize and understand that not everything is priority #1. Continue what you can with HRO, incorporate high reliability principles into the work being done during a crisis, but understand you may need to modify rollout schedules.” (Participant 8)

Prioritizing Competing Demands

The theme of prioritizing competing demands emerged again from 5 participants (Cohort 1, n = 3; Cohort 2, n = 2) with question 3 describing recommendations for other leaders:

“Your first priority is to the crisis. Don’t get distracted by this or any other initiative. That was not a very popular message for the people pushing HRO, but it is the reality and the necessity. However, it IS possible to move forward with HRO (or other important initiatives) during crisis times, as long as you carefully consider what you are asking of people and don’t overload/overwhelm them. It is not your ego (or that of Central Office) that needs to be stoked. If the initiative truly has value, you need to be patient to see it done properly, rather than rushed/pushed/forced. Don’t kill it by being overeager and overwhelming your already overtaxed people. That said, keep moving forward. The key is pacing—and remember that your Type A hard-driving leader types (you know who you are) will certainly fail if they push it. Or even if they go at a normal pace that would be appropriate for noncrisis times.” (Participant 4)

“Prioritize and understand that not everything is priority #1. Continue what you can with HRO, incorporate high reliability principles into the work being done during a crisis, but understand you may need to modify rollout schedules.” (Participant 8)

“It was critical for us to always focus on the immediate workplace safety of staff (especially those on the frontlines of the pandemic response) when in the process of rolling out HRO initiatives.” (Participant 14)

Maintaining Momentum

When analyzing additional information that participants thought would be of value, 3 participants (Cohort 1, n=2; Cohort 2, n=1) noted the importance of maintaining momentum with HRO during a crisis:

“It seemed as though communication and education from VHA on HRO slowed down at the same time, which further slowed our progress. We are now trying to ramp our engagement up again.” (Participant 3)

“There can be synergy between crisis response and HRO implementation. As an example, one of the first steps we took was leadership rounding. That was necessary anyways for crisis management (raising the spirits on the front lines, so to speak). What we did was include scheduled time instead of (in addition to) ad hoc. And we got credit for taking an HRO step. I resisted whiteboards/visual management systems for a long time because (in my opinion) that would have been much too distracting during the crisis. Having waited for better times, I was able to move forward with that several months later and with good success.” (Participant 4)

Discussion

Health care leaders worldwide experienced an immense set of challenges because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a crisis of a magnitude with no parallel in modern times. Strong, adaptive leadership at all levels of health care systems was needed to effectively address the immense crisis at hand.^36,37 Findings from this pilot QI initiative suggest that MCDs faced many new challenges, requiring them to perform unfamiliar tasks and manage numerous overlapping challenges (eg, staffing shortages and reassignments, safety concerns, changes to patient appointments, backlogs in essential services), all while also trying to continue with the journey to high reliability. Despite the challenges leaders faced, they recognized the need to manage competing priorities early and effectively. At times, the priority was to address the wide-ranging, urgent issues related to the pandemic. When the conditions improved, there was time to refocus efforts on important but longer-term activities related to the HRO journey. Other participants recognized that their commitment to HRO needed to remain a priority even during the periods of intense focus on COVID-19. These participants continuously looked for ways to integrate HRO principles and practices into their response to the extraordinary challenges of the pandemic. Emerging research highlights how leaders had to modify their day-to-day responsibilities because of the wide disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, even when not on the journey to becoming an HRO.^36,37

Some participants felt compelled to stay committed to the HRO journey despite numerous competing demands. They stayed committed to looking for opportunities to progress by implementing HRO principles and practices to achieve safety, quality, and efficiency goals. This dedication is noteworthy, especially in light of recently published research that demonstrates the vast number of patient safety issues that presented during the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, ineffective communication, poor teamwork, the absence of coordination)¹ as well as perceptions that patient safety and quality of care had significantly declined as a result of the crisis.^36,37

Participants also highlighted the need to be adaptive when responding to the complexity and unpredictability of the pandemic. Participants regularly sought ways to increase their knowledge, skills, and abilities by using the resources (eg, tools, experts) available to them. Research shows that in increasingly complex and ever-changing situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders must be adaptive with all levels of performance, especially when limited information is available.^38,39

This is the first initiative of its kind to specifically explore the challenges experienced and lessons learned from health care leaders continuing along the journey to high reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from this pilot QI initiative revealed that many participants recommended that leaders adapt and overcome challenges as much as possible when continuing with HRO during a crisis. These findings are echoed in the current literature suggesting that adaptive performance is a highly effective form of leadership during crises.^38,40 Being able to effectively adapt during a crisis is essential for reducing further vulnerabilities across health care systems. In fact, this lesson is shared by many countries in response to the unprecedented global crisis.⁴¹A limitation of this pilot QI initiative is that the authors did not directly solicit responses from all VHA MCDs or from other health care executives (eg, Chief of Staff, Associate Director for Operations, Associate Director for Patient Care, and Nurse Executive). As such, our findings represent only a small segment of senior leadership perspectives from a large, integrated health care system. Individuals who did not respond to the survey may have had different experiences than those who did, and the authors excluded many MCDs who formally began their HRO journeys in 2022, well after the pandemic was underway. Similarly, the experiences of Veterans Affairs leaders may or may not be similar to that of other health care organizations. Although the goal of this initiative was to explore the participants’ experiences during the period of crisis, time and distance from the events at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted in difficulty recalling information as well as making sense of the occurrence. This potential recall bias is a common occurrence in trying to explore past experiences, especially as they relate to crises. Finally, this pilot QI initiative did not explore personal challenges participants may have faced during this period of time (eg, burnout, personal or family illness), which may have also shaped their responses.

Conclusion

This initiative suggests that VHA MCDs often relied on HRO principles to guide and assist with their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including managing periods of unprecedented crisis. The ability to adapt and prioritize was seen as an especially important lesson. Many MCDs continued their personal and organizational efforts toward high reliability even in periods of intense challenge because of the pandemic. These findings can help with future crises that may occur during an organization’s journey to high reliability. This pilot QI initiative’s findings warrant further investigation to explore the experiences of the broader range of health care leaders while responding to unplanned crises or even planned large-scale cultural change or technology modernization initiatives (eg, electronic health record modernization) to expand the state of the science of high reliability as well as inform policy and decision-making. Finally, another area for future study is examining how leadership responses vary across facilities, depending on factors such as leader roles, facility complexity level, resource availability, patient population characteristics, and organizational culture.

Acknowledgment: The authors express their sincere gratitude to the medical center directors who participated in this pilot study.

Corresponding author: John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, FAAN, 20 Chapel St., Unit A502, Brookline, MA 02446; JMurray325@aol.com

Disclosures: None reported.

From the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (all authors), and Cognosante, LLC, Falls Church, VA (Dr. Murray, Dr. Sawyer, and Jessica Fankhauser).

Abstract

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented leadership challenges to health care organizations worldwide, especially those on the journey to high reliability. The objective of this pilot quality improvement initiative was to describe the experiences of medical center leaders continuing along the journey to high reliability during the pandemic.

Methods: A convenience sample of Veterans Health Administration medical center directors at facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability prior to or during the COVID-19 pandemic were asked to complete a confidential survey to explore the challenges experienced and lessons learned.

Results: Of the 35 potential participants, 15 completed the confidential web-based survey. Five major themes emerged from participants’ responses: (1) managing competing priorities, (2) staying committed, (3) adapting and overcoming, (4) prioritizing competing demands, and (5) maintaining momentum.

Conclusion: This pilot quality improvement initiative provides some insight into the challenges experienced and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to help inform health care leaders’ responses during crises they may encounter along the journey to becoming a high reliability organization.

Keywords: HRO, leadership, patient safety.

Health care leaders worldwide agree that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented one of the most challenging leadership tests encountered in many generations,^1,2 creating a widespread crisis of unprecedented scope and scale for health care systems globally.^2,3 COVID-19 has posed many challenges and obstacles for health care leaders, including overworked, overstressed, and socially isolated employees; expedited hiring to ensure adequate staffing; reallocation of employees to other units; supply shortages such as personal protective equipment; changing polices related to safety protocols; modifying operations; reorganizing facilities to care for large volumes of critically ill patients; and ethical challenges.^4-8 Health care systems were required to create and implement new clinical, operational, and staffing protocols that extended capabilities far beyond conventional standards of care and crisis response operations.⁹ To provide a picture of the impact of COVID-19 on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), as of March 3, 2023, the VHA has fully vaccinated more than 4.7 million individuals, including 4.3 million veterans and 320,936 federal employees.^10,11

Maintaining continuous progress toward advancing high reliability organization (HRO) principles and practices can be especially challenging during crises of unprecedented scale such as the pandemic. HROs must be continually focused on achieving safety, quality, and efficiency goals by attending to the 3 pillars of HRO: culture, leadership, and continuous process improvement. HROs promote a culture where all staff across the organization watch for and report any unsafe conditions before these conditions pose a greater risk in the workplace. Hospital leaders, from executives to frontline managers, must be cognizant of all systems and processes that have the potential to affect patient care.¹² All of the principles of HROs must continue without fail to ensure patient safety; these principles include preoccupation with failure, anticipating unexpected risks, sensitivity to dynamic and ever-changing operations, avoiding oversimplifications of identified problems, fostering resilience across the organization, and deferring to those with the expertise to make the best decisions regardless of position, rank, or title.^12,13 Given the demands faced by leaders during crises with unprecedented disruption to normal operating procedures, it can be especially difficult to identify systemic challenges and apply lessons learned in a timely manner. However, it is critical to identify such lessons in order to continuously improve and to increase preparedness for subsequent crises.^13,14

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s unprecedented nature in recent history, a review of the literature produced little evidence exploring the challenges experienced and lessons learned by health care leaders, especially as it relates to implementing or sustaining HRO journeys during the COVID-19 pandemic. Related literature published to date consists of editorials on reliability, uncertainty, and the management of errors¹⁵; patient safety and high reliability preventive strategies¹⁶; and authentic leadership.¹⁷ Five viewpoints were published on HROs and maladaptive stress behaviors,¹⁸ mindful organizing and organizational reliability,¹⁹ the practical essence of HROs,²⁰ embracing principles of HROs in crisis,⁸ and using observation and high reliability strategies when facing an unprecedented safety threat.²¹ Finally, the authors identified 2 studies that used a qualitative research approach to explore leadership functions within an HRO when managing crises²² and organizational change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.²³ Due to the paucity of available information, the authors undertook a pilot quality improvement (QI) initiative to address this knowledge gap.

The aim of this initiative was to gain a better understanding of the challenges experienced, lessons learned, and recommendations to be shared by VHA medical center directors (MCDs) of health care facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors hope that this information will help health care leaders across both governmental and nongovernmental organizations, nationally and globally, to prepare for future pandemics, other unanticipated crises (eg, natural disasters, terrorist attacks), and major change initiatives (eg, electronic health record modernization) that may affect the delivery of safe, high-quality, and effective patient care. The initiative is described using the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines.^24,25

Methods

Survey

We used a qualitative approach and administered a confidential web-based survey, developed by the project team, to VHA MCDs at facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey consisted of 8 participant characteristic questions (Table 1) and 4 open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were designed to encourage MCD participants to freely provide detailed descriptions of the challenges experienced, lessons learned, recommendations for other health care leaders, and any additional information they believed was relevant.^26,27 Participants were asked to respond to the following items:

1. Please describe any challenges you experienced while in the role of MCD at a facility that initiated implementation of HRO principles and practices prior to (February 2020) or during (March 2020–September 2021) the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. What are some lessons that you learned when responding to the COVID-19 pandemic while on the journey to high reliability?
2. What recommendations would you like to make to other health care leaders to enable them to respond effectively to crises while on the journey to high reliability?
3. Please provide any additional information that would be of value.

An invitation to participate in this pilot QI initiative was sent via e-mail to 35 potential participants, who were all MCDs at Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 facilities. The invitation was sent on June 17, 2022, by a VHA senior High Reliability Enterprise Support government team member not directly involved with the initiative. The participants were given 3 weeks to complete the survey. A reminder was sent at the end of week 1 and the beginning of week 3. The VHA MCDs from Cohort 1 (n = 17) began the HRO journey in February 2019 and those in Cohort 2 (n = 18) initiated the HRO journey in October 2020. Because the VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the potential participants were geographically dispersed. Examples of locations in Cohort 1 include Manchester Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in New Hampshire, Ralph H. Johnson VAMC in Charleston, South Carolina, and Boise VAMC, in Idaho. Examples of Cohort 2 locations include Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, Marion VAMC in Indiana, and John D. Dingell VAMC in Detroit, Michigan.

The invitation included the objective of the initiative, estimated time to complete the confidential web-based survey, time allotted for responses to be submitted, and a link to the survey should potential participants agree to participate. Potential participants were informed that their involvement was voluntary, based on their willingness to participate and available time to complete the survey. Finally, the invitation noted that any comments provided would remain confidential and nonattributional for the purpose of publishing and presenting. The inclusion criteria for participation were: (1) serving in the role of MCD of an organization that initiated implementation of HRO principles and practices prior to (February 2020) or during (March 2020–September 2021) the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) voluntary participation; and (3) thorough responses provided to the 4 open-ended and 8 participant characteristic questions, according to the instructions provided.

Data Gathering and Analysis

To minimize bias and maintain neutrality at the organizational level, only non-VHA individuals working on the project were directly involved with participants’ data review and analysis. Participant characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Responses to the 4 open-ended questions were coded and analyzed by an experienced researcher and coauthor using NVivo 11 qualitative data analysis software.²⁸ To ensure trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) in the data analysis procedure,²⁹ inductive thematic analysis was also performed manually using the methodologies of Braun and Clarke (Table 2)³⁰ and Erlingsson and Brysiewicz.³¹ The goal of inductive analysis is to allow themes to emerge from the data while minimizing preconceptions.^32,33 Regular team meetings were held to discuss and review the progress of data collection and analysis. The authors agreed that the themes were representative of the participants’ responses.

Institutional review board (IRB) review and approval were not required, as this project was a pilot QI initiative. The intent of the initiative was to explore ways to improve the quality of care delivered in the participants’ local care settings and not to generalize the findings. Under these circumstances, formal IRB review and approval of a QI initiative are not required.³⁴ Participation in this pilot QI initiative was voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without consequences. Completion of the survey indicated consent. Confidentiality was ensured at all times by avoiding both the use of facility names and the collection of participant identifiers. Unique numbers were assigned to each participant. All comments provided by survey participants remained confidential and nonattributional for the purpose of publishing and presenting.

Results

Of the 35 potential participants, 15 VHA MCDs (43%) completed the confidential web-based survey. Out of the 17 potential participants in Cohort 1, 6 (35%) completed the survey. With Cohort 2, 9 (50%) of the potential 18 participants responded. Although saturation was reached at 10 responses, the additional completed surveys were included in the analysis. Saturation can be achieved with a small number of participants (n = 9–17), particularly when the potential participants are relatively homogenous and project aims are narrowly defined.³⁵ Most participants had more than 10 years of executive-level experience and most medical centers had been on the journey to high reliability for more than 12 months at the time of the pandemic (Table 3). Five major themes emerged from the participants’ responses: (1) managing competing priorities, (2) staying committed, (3) adapting and overcoming, (4) prioritizing competing demands, and (5) maintaining momentum. In the following sections, the numbers in parentheses after the direct quotes represent the unique numbers assigned to the participant providing the response.

Managing Competing Priorities

When analyzing the responses to question 1, a recurring theme from 7 participants (Cohort 1, n = 4; Cohort 2, n = 3) related to challenges encountered while continuing the journey to high reliability during COVID-19 was managing competing priorities. Although most participants reported extensive previous leadership experience, some did not feel prepared for the complexity, uncertainty, challenges, and multitude of competing priorities facing the journey to high reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic. One participant succinctly noted:

“There were too many competing priorities dealing with the pandemic and staffing crisis.” (Participant 8)

Other participants shared:

“We had our HRO mentor designated just as our first peak was descending on us. It was initially challenging to determine the proper pace of implementation when we clearly had other things going on. There was a real risk that people would say, ‘What, are you kidding?’ as we tried to roll this out.” (Participant 4)

“Prior to COVID, our main challenges were getting organized and operational rollout. During the pandemic, we had to shift our focus to COVID and the training aspects suffered. Also, many other priorities pulled us away from an HRO rollout focus.” (Participant 6)

Staying Committed

When examining the question 2 responses, 1 theme that resonated most when it came to lessons learned, shared by 6 participants (Cohort 1, n = 4; Cohort 2, n = 2), was the need to stay committed to HRO, despite the unprecedented crisis at hand. A number of participants eloquently noted how important it was stay committed to the HRO journey during the COVID-19 pandemic:

“If you don’t need a highly reliable organization during a crisis, when do you need it? That was the message that we kicked off with. It was also VERY important to take things slowly. Education had to be done in bits, and we had a much more modest timeline than what would have been the norm for any initiative pre-COVID. The emphasis was on this being a long-term commitment, that we would be doing it the right way rather than rushing it, etc.” (Participant 4)

“Keeping HRO principles and a Just Culture on the forefront of our minds, we looked for opportunities to progress on our HRO journey, despite the challenges of the pandemic. Our monthly Town Halls became weekly events to share COVID updates and information with staff. We used the Town Halls to promote our HRO mission and to open communication lines with staff, designating 1 week each month as a ‘Safety Forum.’ The pandemic provided the springboard and backdrop for staff Safety Stories submissions, many of which were shared at our Town Halls and Safety Forums.” (Participant 7)

“We were able to utilize HRO principles in response to the COVID pandemic. Specifically standardized communication from the facility to VISN [Veterans Integrated Services Network] was initiated on a daily basis. This practice provided daily communication on key operational items and clinical items at the medical center, allowed timely feedback on actions being taken, as was instrumental in daily checks on staffing, COVID testing supplies, overall supply chain issues.” (Participant 9)

Adapting and Overcoming

The recommendations provided by 10 participants (Cohort 1, n = 6; Cohort 2, n = 4) for other health care leaders experiencing a crisis during the journey to high reliability were insightful. The themes that frequently emerged from the responses to the survey were to adapt and overcome. Participants shared:

“Utilize the many tools you’re given, specifically your team. Try even the craziest ideas from frontline staff.” (Participant 1)

“Use your mentors for younger directors and, even if you think you know the answer, involve your staff. It makes them feel they have a voice and gives them ownership of the issues.” (Participant 5)

“Make sure that you have key leaders in place who are committed to HRO and can help the organization adjust.” (Participant 6)

“Take advantage of HRO Leader Coaching, which pairs MCDs with coaches who act as consultants for HRO leadership practices to ensure progress in reaching the next level in the journey to High Reliability.” (Participant 7)

“Meet regularly with the HRO Lead and team (more frequently during early stages of implementation) to provide support, eliminate barriers, and champion the HRO mission. It is important to include other members of the ELT [Executive Leadership Team] to ensure their involvement with the facility HRO strategic plan.” (Participant 7)

“Prioritize and understand that not everything is priority #1. Continue what you can with HRO, incorporate high reliability principles into the work being done during a crisis, but understand you may need to modify rollout schedules.” (Participant 8)

Prioritizing Competing Demands

The theme of prioritizing competing demands emerged again from 5 participants (Cohort 1, n = 3; Cohort 2, n = 2) with question 3 describing recommendations for other leaders:

“Your first priority is to the crisis. Don’t get distracted by this or any other initiative. That was not a very popular message for the people pushing HRO, but it is the reality and the necessity. However, it IS possible to move forward with HRO (or other important initiatives) during crisis times, as long as you carefully consider what you are asking of people and don’t overload/overwhelm them. It is not your ego (or that of Central Office) that needs to be stoked. If the initiative truly has value, you need to be patient to see it done properly, rather than rushed/pushed/forced. Don’t kill it by being overeager and overwhelming your already overtaxed people. That said, keep moving forward. The key is pacing—and remember that your Type A hard-driving leader types (you know who you are) will certainly fail if they push it. Or even if they go at a normal pace that would be appropriate for noncrisis times.” (Participant 4)

“Prioritize and understand that not everything is priority #1. Continue what you can with HRO, incorporate high reliability principles into the work being done during a crisis, but understand you may need to modify rollout schedules.” (Participant 8)

“It was critical for us to always focus on the immediate workplace safety of staff (especially those on the frontlines of the pandemic response) when in the process of rolling out HRO initiatives.” (Participant 14)

Maintaining Momentum

When analyzing additional information that participants thought would be of value, 3 participants (Cohort 1, n=2; Cohort 2, n=1) noted the importance of maintaining momentum with HRO during a crisis:

“It seemed as though communication and education from VHA on HRO slowed down at the same time, which further slowed our progress. We are now trying to ramp our engagement up again.” (Participant 3)

“There can be synergy between crisis response and HRO implementation. As an example, one of the first steps we took was leadership rounding. That was necessary anyways for crisis management (raising the spirits on the front lines, so to speak). What we did was include scheduled time instead of (in addition to) ad hoc. And we got credit for taking an HRO step. I resisted whiteboards/visual management systems for a long time because (in my opinion) that would have been much too distracting during the crisis. Having waited for better times, I was able to move forward with that several months later and with good success.” (Participant 4)

Discussion

Health care leaders worldwide experienced an immense set of challenges because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a crisis of a magnitude with no parallel in modern times. Strong, adaptive leadership at all levels of health care systems was needed to effectively address the immense crisis at hand.^36,37 Findings from this pilot QI initiative suggest that MCDs faced many new challenges, requiring them to perform unfamiliar tasks and manage numerous overlapping challenges (eg, staffing shortages and reassignments, safety concerns, changes to patient appointments, backlogs in essential services), all while also trying to continue with the journey to high reliability. Despite the challenges leaders faced, they recognized the need to manage competing priorities early and effectively. At times, the priority was to address the wide-ranging, urgent issues related to the pandemic. When the conditions improved, there was time to refocus efforts on important but longer-term activities related to the HRO journey. Other participants recognized that their commitment to HRO needed to remain a priority even during the periods of intense focus on COVID-19. These participants continuously looked for ways to integrate HRO principles and practices into their response to the extraordinary challenges of the pandemic. Emerging research highlights how leaders had to modify their day-to-day responsibilities because of the wide disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, even when not on the journey to becoming an HRO.^36,37

Some participants felt compelled to stay committed to the HRO journey despite numerous competing demands. They stayed committed to looking for opportunities to progress by implementing HRO principles and practices to achieve safety, quality, and efficiency goals. This dedication is noteworthy, especially in light of recently published research that demonstrates the vast number of patient safety issues that presented during the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, ineffective communication, poor teamwork, the absence of coordination)¹ as well as perceptions that patient safety and quality of care had significantly declined as a result of the crisis.^36,37

Participants also highlighted the need to be adaptive when responding to the complexity and unpredictability of the pandemic. Participants regularly sought ways to increase their knowledge, skills, and abilities by using the resources (eg, tools, experts) available to them. Research shows that in increasingly complex and ever-changing situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders must be adaptive with all levels of performance, especially when limited information is available.^38,39

This is the first initiative of its kind to specifically explore the challenges experienced and lessons learned from health care leaders continuing along the journey to high reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from this pilot QI initiative revealed that many participants recommended that leaders adapt and overcome challenges as much as possible when continuing with HRO during a crisis. These findings are echoed in the current literature suggesting that adaptive performance is a highly effective form of leadership during crises.^38,40 Being able to effectively adapt during a crisis is essential for reducing further vulnerabilities across health care systems. In fact, this lesson is shared by many countries in response to the unprecedented global crisis.⁴¹A limitation of this pilot QI initiative is that the authors did not directly solicit responses from all VHA MCDs or from other health care executives (eg, Chief of Staff, Associate Director for Operations, Associate Director for Patient Care, and Nurse Executive). As such, our findings represent only a small segment of senior leadership perspectives from a large, integrated health care system. Individuals who did not respond to the survey may have had different experiences than those who did, and the authors excluded many MCDs who formally began their HRO journeys in 2022, well after the pandemic was underway. Similarly, the experiences of Veterans Affairs leaders may or may not be similar to that of other health care organizations. Although the goal of this initiative was to explore the participants’ experiences during the period of crisis, time and distance from the events at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted in difficulty recalling information as well as making sense of the occurrence. This potential recall bias is a common occurrence in trying to explore past experiences, especially as they relate to crises. Finally, this pilot QI initiative did not explore personal challenges participants may have faced during this period of time (eg, burnout, personal or family illness), which may have also shaped their responses.

Conclusion

This initiative suggests that VHA MCDs often relied on HRO principles to guide and assist with their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including managing periods of unprecedented crisis. The ability to adapt and prioritize was seen as an especially important lesson. Many MCDs continued their personal and organizational efforts toward high reliability even in periods of intense challenge because of the pandemic. These findings can help with future crises that may occur during an organization’s journey to high reliability. This pilot QI initiative’s findings warrant further investigation to explore the experiences of the broader range of health care leaders while responding to unplanned crises or even planned large-scale cultural change or technology modernization initiatives (eg, electronic health record modernization) to expand the state of the science of high reliability as well as inform policy and decision-making. Finally, another area for future study is examining how leadership responses vary across facilities, depending on factors such as leader roles, facility complexity level, resource availability, patient population characteristics, and organizational culture.

Acknowledgment: The authors express their sincere gratitude to the medical center directors who participated in this pilot study.

Corresponding author: John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, FAAN, 20 Chapel St., Unit A502, Brookline, MA 02446; JMurray325@aol.com

Disclosures: None reported.

From the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (all authors), and Cognosante, LLC, Falls Church, VA (Dr. Murray, Dr. Sawyer, and Jessica Fankhauser).

Abstract

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented leadership challenges to health care organizations worldwide, especially those on the journey to high reliability. The objective of this pilot quality improvement initiative was to describe the experiences of medical center leaders continuing along the journey to high reliability during the pandemic.

Methods: A convenience sample of Veterans Health Administration medical center directors at facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability prior to or during the COVID-19 pandemic were asked to complete a confidential survey to explore the challenges experienced and lessons learned.

Results: Of the 35 potential participants, 15 completed the confidential web-based survey. Five major themes emerged from participants’ responses: (1) managing competing priorities, (2) staying committed, (3) adapting and overcoming, (4) prioritizing competing demands, and (5) maintaining momentum.

Conclusion: This pilot quality improvement initiative provides some insight into the challenges experienced and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to help inform health care leaders’ responses during crises they may encounter along the journey to becoming a high reliability organization.

Keywords: HRO, leadership, patient safety.

Health care leaders worldwide agree that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented one of the most challenging leadership tests encountered in many generations,^1,2 creating a widespread crisis of unprecedented scope and scale for health care systems globally.^2,3 COVID-19 has posed many challenges and obstacles for health care leaders, including overworked, overstressed, and socially isolated employees; expedited hiring to ensure adequate staffing; reallocation of employees to other units; supply shortages such as personal protective equipment; changing polices related to safety protocols; modifying operations; reorganizing facilities to care for large volumes of critically ill patients; and ethical challenges.^4-8 Health care systems were required to create and implement new clinical, operational, and staffing protocols that extended capabilities far beyond conventional standards of care and crisis response operations.⁹ To provide a picture of the impact of COVID-19 on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), as of March 3, 2023, the VHA has fully vaccinated more than 4.7 million individuals, including 4.3 million veterans and 320,936 federal employees.^10,11

Maintaining continuous progress toward advancing high reliability organization (HRO) principles and practices can be especially challenging during crises of unprecedented scale such as the pandemic. HROs must be continually focused on achieving safety, quality, and efficiency goals by attending to the 3 pillars of HRO: culture, leadership, and continuous process improvement. HROs promote a culture where all staff across the organization watch for and report any unsafe conditions before these conditions pose a greater risk in the workplace. Hospital leaders, from executives to frontline managers, must be cognizant of all systems and processes that have the potential to affect patient care.¹² All of the principles of HROs must continue without fail to ensure patient safety; these principles include preoccupation with failure, anticipating unexpected risks, sensitivity to dynamic and ever-changing operations, avoiding oversimplifications of identified problems, fostering resilience across the organization, and deferring to those with the expertise to make the best decisions regardless of position, rank, or title.^12,13 Given the demands faced by leaders during crises with unprecedented disruption to normal operating procedures, it can be especially difficult to identify systemic challenges and apply lessons learned in a timely manner. However, it is critical to identify such lessons in order to continuously improve and to increase preparedness for subsequent crises.^13,14

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s unprecedented nature in recent history, a review of the literature produced little evidence exploring the challenges experienced and lessons learned by health care leaders, especially as it relates to implementing or sustaining HRO journeys during the COVID-19 pandemic. Related literature published to date consists of editorials on reliability, uncertainty, and the management of errors¹⁵; patient safety and high reliability preventive strategies¹⁶; and authentic leadership.¹⁷ Five viewpoints were published on HROs and maladaptive stress behaviors,¹⁸ mindful organizing and organizational reliability,¹⁹ the practical essence of HROs,²⁰ embracing principles of HROs in crisis,⁸ and using observation and high reliability strategies when facing an unprecedented safety threat.²¹ Finally, the authors identified 2 studies that used a qualitative research approach to explore leadership functions within an HRO when managing crises²² and organizational change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.²³ Due to the paucity of available information, the authors undertook a pilot quality improvement (QI) initiative to address this knowledge gap.

The aim of this initiative was to gain a better understanding of the challenges experienced, lessons learned, and recommendations to be shared by VHA medical center directors (MCDs) of health care facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors hope that this information will help health care leaders across both governmental and nongovernmental organizations, nationally and globally, to prepare for future pandemics, other unanticipated crises (eg, natural disasters, terrorist attacks), and major change initiatives (eg, electronic health record modernization) that may affect the delivery of safe, high-quality, and effective patient care. The initiative is described using the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines.^24,25

Methods

Survey

We used a qualitative approach and administered a confidential web-based survey, developed by the project team, to VHA MCDs at facilities that had initiated the journey to high reliability before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey consisted of 8 participant characteristic questions (Table 1) and 4 open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were designed to encourage MCD participants to freely provide detailed descriptions of the challenges experienced, lessons learned, recommendations for other health care leaders, and any additional information they believed was relevant.^26,27 Participants were asked to respond to the following items:

1. Please describe any challenges you experienced while in the role of MCD at a facility that initiated implementation of HRO principles and practices prior to (February 2020) or during (March 2020–September 2021) the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. What are some lessons that you learned when responding to the COVID-19 pandemic while on the journey to high reliability?
2. What recommendations would you like to make to other health care leaders to enable them to respond effectively to crises while on the journey to high reliability?
3. Please provide any additional information that would be of value.

An invitation to participate in this pilot QI initiative was sent via e-mail to 35 potential participants, who were all MCDs at Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 facilities. The invitation was sent on June 17, 2022, by a VHA senior High Reliability Enterprise Support government team member not directly involved with the initiative. The participants were given 3 weeks to complete the survey. A reminder was sent at the end of week 1 and the beginning of week 3. The VHA MCDs from Cohort 1 (n = 17) began the HRO journey in February 2019 and those in Cohort 2 (n = 18) initiated the HRO journey in October 2020. Because the VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the potential participants were geographically dispersed. Examples of locations in Cohort 1 include Manchester Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in New Hampshire, Ralph H. Johnson VAMC in Charleston, South Carolina, and Boise VAMC, in Idaho. Examples of Cohort 2 locations include Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, Marion VAMC in Indiana, and John D. Dingell VAMC in Detroit, Michigan.

The invitation included the objective of the initiative, estimated time to complete the confidential web-based survey, time allotted for responses to be submitted, and a link to the survey should potential participants agree to participate. Potential participants were informed that their involvement was voluntary, based on their willingness to participate and available time to complete the survey. Finally, the invitation noted that any comments provided would remain confidential and nonattributional for the purpose of publishing and presenting. The inclusion criteria for participation were: (1) serving in the role of MCD of an organization that initiated implementation of HRO principles and practices prior to (February 2020) or during (March 2020–September 2021) the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) voluntary participation; and (3) thorough responses provided to the 4 open-ended and 8 participant characteristic questions, according to the instructions provided.

Data Gathering and Analysis

To minimize bias and maintain neutrality at the organizational level, only non-VHA individuals working on the project were directly involved with participants’ data review and analysis. Participant characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Responses to the 4 open-ended questions were coded and analyzed by an experienced researcher and coauthor using NVivo 11 qualitative data analysis software.²⁸ To ensure trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) in the data analysis procedure,²⁹ inductive thematic analysis was also performed manually using the methodologies of Braun and Clarke (Table 2)³⁰ and Erlingsson and Brysiewicz.³¹ The goal of inductive analysis is to allow themes to emerge from the data while minimizing preconceptions.^32,33 Regular team meetings were held to discuss and review the progress of data collection and analysis. The authors agreed that the themes were representative of the participants’ responses.

Institutional review board (IRB) review and approval were not required, as this project was a pilot QI initiative. The intent of the initiative was to explore ways to improve the quality of care delivered in the participants’ local care settings and not to generalize the findings. Under these circumstances, formal IRB review and approval of a QI initiative are not required.³⁴ Participation in this pilot QI initiative was voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without consequences. Completion of the survey indicated consent. Confidentiality was ensured at all times by avoiding both the use of facility names and the collection of participant identifiers. Unique numbers were assigned to each participant. All comments provided by survey participants remained confidential and nonattributional for the purpose of publishing and presenting.

Results

Of the 35 potential participants, 15 VHA MCDs (43%) completed the confidential web-based survey. Out of the 17 potential participants in Cohort 1, 6 (35%) completed the survey. With Cohort 2, 9 (50%) of the potential 18 participants responded. Although saturation was reached at 10 responses, the additional completed surveys were included in the analysis. Saturation can be achieved with a small number of participants (n = 9–17), particularly when the potential participants are relatively homogenous and project aims are narrowly defined.³⁵ Most participants had more than 10 years of executive-level experience and most medical centers had been on the journey to high reliability for more than 12 months at the time of the pandemic (Table 3). Five major themes emerged from the participants’ responses: (1) managing competing priorities, (2) staying committed, (3) adapting and overcoming, (4) prioritizing competing demands, and (5) maintaining momentum. In the following sections, the numbers in parentheses after the direct quotes represent the unique numbers assigned to the participant providing the response.

Managing Competing Priorities

When analyzing the responses to question 1, a recurring theme from 7 participants (Cohort 1, n = 4; Cohort 2, n = 3) related to challenges encountered while continuing the journey to high reliability during COVID-19 was managing competing priorities. Although most participants reported extensive previous leadership experience, some did not feel prepared for the complexity, uncertainty, challenges, and multitude of competing priorities facing the journey to high reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic. One participant succinctly noted:

“There were too many competing priorities dealing with the pandemic and staffing crisis.” (Participant 8)

Other participants shared:

“We had our HRO mentor designated just as our first peak was descending on us. It was initially challenging to determine the proper pace of implementation when we clearly had other things going on. There was a real risk that people would say, ‘What, are you kidding?’ as we tried to roll this out.” (Participant 4)

“Prior to COVID, our main challenges were getting organized and operational rollout. During the pandemic, we had to shift our focus to COVID and the training aspects suffered. Also, many other priorities pulled us away from an HRO rollout focus.” (Participant 6)

Staying Committed

When examining the question 2 responses, 1 theme that resonated most when it came to lessons learned, shared by 6 participants (Cohort 1, n = 4; Cohort 2, n = 2), was the need to stay committed to HRO, despite the unprecedented crisis at hand. A number of participants eloquently noted how important it was stay committed to the HRO journey during the COVID-19 pandemic:

“If you don’t need a highly reliable organization during a crisis, when do you need it? That was the message that we kicked off with. It was also VERY important to take things slowly. Education had to be done in bits, and we had a much more modest timeline than what would have been the norm for any initiative pre-COVID. The emphasis was on this being a long-term commitment, that we would be doing it the right way rather than rushing it, etc.” (Participant 4)

“Keeping HRO principles and a Just Culture on the forefront of our minds, we looked for opportunities to progress on our HRO journey, despite the challenges of the pandemic. Our monthly Town Halls became weekly events to share COVID updates and information with staff. We used the Town Halls to promote our HRO mission and to open communication lines with staff, designating 1 week each month as a ‘Safety Forum.’ The pandemic provided the springboard and backdrop for staff Safety Stories submissions, many of which were shared at our Town Halls and Safety Forums.” (Participant 7)

“We were able to utilize HRO principles in response to the COVID pandemic. Specifically standardized communication from the facility to VISN [Veterans Integrated Services Network] was initiated on a daily basis. This practice provided daily communication on key operational items and clinical items at the medical center, allowed timely feedback on actions being taken, as was instrumental in daily checks on staffing, COVID testing supplies, overall supply chain issues.” (Participant 9)

Adapting and Overcoming

The recommendations provided by 10 participants (Cohort 1, n = 6; Cohort 2, n = 4) for other health care leaders experiencing a crisis during the journey to high reliability were insightful. The themes that frequently emerged from the responses to the survey were to adapt and overcome. Participants shared:

“Utilize the many tools you’re given, specifically your team. Try even the craziest ideas from frontline staff.” (Participant 1)

“Use your mentors for younger directors and, even if you think you know the answer, involve your staff. It makes them feel they have a voice and gives them ownership of the issues.” (Participant 5)

“Make sure that you have key leaders in place who are committed to HRO and can help the organization adjust.” (Participant 6)

“Take advantage of HRO Leader Coaching, which pairs MCDs with coaches who act as consultants for HRO leadership practices to ensure progress in reaching the next level in the journey to High Reliability.” (Participant 7)

“Meet regularly with the HRO Lead and team (more frequently during early stages of implementation) to provide support, eliminate barriers, and champion the HRO mission. It is important to include other members of the ELT [Executive Leadership Team] to ensure their involvement with the facility HRO strategic plan.” (Participant 7)

“Prioritize and understand that not everything is priority #1. Continue what you can with HRO, incorporate high reliability principles into the work being done during a crisis, but understand you may need to modify rollout schedules.” (Participant 8)

Prioritizing Competing Demands

The theme of prioritizing competing demands emerged again from 5 participants (Cohort 1, n = 3; Cohort 2, n = 2) with question 3 describing recommendations for other leaders:

“Your first priority is to the crisis. Don’t get distracted by this or any other initiative. That was not a very popular message for the people pushing HRO, but it is the reality and the necessity. However, it IS possible to move forward with HRO (or other important initiatives) during crisis times, as long as you carefully consider what you are asking of people and don’t overload/overwhelm them. It is not your ego (or that of Central Office) that needs to be stoked. If the initiative truly has value, you need to be patient to see it done properly, rather than rushed/pushed/forced. Don’t kill it by being overeager and overwhelming your already overtaxed people. That said, keep moving forward. The key is pacing—and remember that your Type A hard-driving leader types (you know who you are) will certainly fail if they push it. Or even if they go at a normal pace that would be appropriate for noncrisis times.” (Participant 4)

“Prioritize and understand that not everything is priority #1. Continue what you can with HRO, incorporate high reliability principles into the work being done during a crisis, but understand you may need to modify rollout schedules.” (Participant 8)

“It was critical for us to always focus on the immediate workplace safety of staff (especially those on the frontlines of the pandemic response) when in the process of rolling out HRO initiatives.” (Participant 14)

Maintaining Momentum

When analyzing additional information that participants thought would be of value, 3 participants (Cohort 1, n=2; Cohort 2, n=1) noted the importance of maintaining momentum with HRO during a crisis:

“It seemed as though communication and education from VHA on HRO slowed down at the same time, which further slowed our progress. We are now trying to ramp our engagement up again.” (Participant 3)

“There can be synergy between crisis response and HRO implementation. As an example, one of the first steps we took was leadership rounding. That was necessary anyways for crisis management (raising the spirits on the front lines, so to speak). What we did was include scheduled time instead of (in addition to) ad hoc. And we got credit for taking an HRO step. I resisted whiteboards/visual management systems for a long time because (in my opinion) that would have been much too distracting during the crisis. Having waited for better times, I was able to move forward with that several months later and with good success.” (Participant 4)

Discussion

Health care leaders worldwide experienced an immense set of challenges because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a crisis of a magnitude with no parallel in modern times. Strong, adaptive leadership at all levels of health care systems was needed to effectively address the immense crisis at hand.^36,37 Findings from this pilot QI initiative suggest that MCDs faced many new challenges, requiring them to perform unfamiliar tasks and manage numerous overlapping challenges (eg, staffing shortages and reassignments, safety concerns, changes to patient appointments, backlogs in essential services), all while also trying to continue with the journey to high reliability. Despite the challenges leaders faced, they recognized the need to manage competing priorities early and effectively. At times, the priority was to address the wide-ranging, urgent issues related to the pandemic. When the conditions improved, there was time to refocus efforts on important but longer-term activities related to the HRO journey. Other participants recognized that their commitment to HRO needed to remain a priority even during the periods of intense focus on COVID-19. These participants continuously looked for ways to integrate HRO principles and practices into their response to the extraordinary challenges of the pandemic. Emerging research highlights how leaders had to modify their day-to-day responsibilities because of the wide disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, even when not on the journey to becoming an HRO.^36,37

Some participants felt compelled to stay committed to the HRO journey despite numerous competing demands. They stayed committed to looking for opportunities to progress by implementing HRO principles and practices to achieve safety, quality, and efficiency goals. This dedication is noteworthy, especially in light of recently published research that demonstrates the vast number of patient safety issues that presented during the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, ineffective communication, poor teamwork, the absence of coordination)¹ as well as perceptions that patient safety and quality of care had significantly declined as a result of the crisis.^36,37

Participants also highlighted the need to be adaptive when responding to the complexity and unpredictability of the pandemic. Participants regularly sought ways to increase their knowledge, skills, and abilities by using the resources (eg, tools, experts) available to them. Research shows that in increasingly complex and ever-changing situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders must be adaptive with all levels of performance, especially when limited information is available.^38,39

This is the first initiative of its kind to specifically explore the challenges experienced and lessons learned from health care leaders continuing along the journey to high reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from this pilot QI initiative revealed that many participants recommended that leaders adapt and overcome challenges as much as possible when continuing with HRO during a crisis. These findings are echoed in the current literature suggesting that adaptive performance is a highly effective form of leadership during crises.^38,40 Being able to effectively adapt during a crisis is essential for reducing further vulnerabilities across health care systems. In fact, this lesson is shared by many countries in response to the unprecedented global crisis.⁴¹A limitation of this pilot QI initiative is that the authors did not directly solicit responses from all VHA MCDs or from other health care executives (eg, Chief of Staff, Associate Director for Operations, Associate Director for Patient Care, and Nurse Executive). As such, our findings represent only a small segment of senior leadership perspectives from a large, integrated health care system. Individuals who did not respond to the survey may have had different experiences than those who did, and the authors excluded many MCDs who formally began their HRO journeys in 2022, well after the pandemic was underway. Similarly, the experiences of Veterans Affairs leaders may or may not be similar to that of other health care organizations. Although the goal of this initiative was to explore the participants’ experiences during the period of crisis, time and distance from the events at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted in difficulty recalling information as well as making sense of the occurrence. This potential recall bias is a common occurrence in trying to explore past experiences, especially as they relate to crises. Finally, this pilot QI initiative did not explore personal challenges participants may have faced during this period of time (eg, burnout, personal or family illness), which may have also shaped their responses.

Conclusion

This initiative suggests that VHA MCDs often relied on HRO principles to guide and assist with their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including managing periods of unprecedented crisis. The ability to adapt and prioritize was seen as an especially important lesson. Many MCDs continued their personal and organizational efforts toward high reliability even in periods of intense challenge because of the pandemic. These findings can help with future crises that may occur during an organization’s journey to high reliability. This pilot QI initiative’s findings warrant further investigation to explore the experiences of the broader range of health care leaders while responding to unplanned crises or even planned large-scale cultural change or technology modernization initiatives (eg, electronic health record modernization) to expand the state of the science of high reliability as well as inform policy and decision-making. Finally, another area for future study is examining how leadership responses vary across facilities, depending on factors such as leader roles, facility complexity level, resource availability, patient population characteristics, and organizational culture.

Acknowledgment: The authors express their sincere gratitude to the medical center directors who participated in this pilot study.

Corresponding author: John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, FAAN, 20 Chapel St., Unit A502, Brookline, MA 02446; JMurray325@aol.com

Disclosures: None reported.

This year marks the publication of the 30th volume of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management (JCOM). As we celebrate JCOM’s 30th year, we look forward to the future and continuing the journey to inform quality improvement leaders and practitioners about advances in the field and share experiences. The path forward on this journey involves collaboration across stakeholders, the application of innovative improvement methods, and a commitment to achieving health equity. Health care quality improvement plans must prioritize patient-centered care, promote evidence-based practices and continuous learning, and establish clear metrics to measure progress and success. Furthermore, engagement with patients and communities must be at the forefront of any quality improvement plan, as their perspectives and experiences are essential to understanding and addressing the root causes of disparities in health care delivery. Additionally, effective communication and coordination among health care providers, administrators, policymakers, and other stakeholders are crucial to achieving sustainable improvements in health care quality.

JCOM’s mission is to serve as a platform for sharing knowledge, experiences, and best practices to improve patient outcomes and promote health equity. The vision encompasses a world where all individuals have access to high-quality, patient-centered health care that is free of disparities and achieves optimal health outcomes. JCOM’s strategy is to publish articles that showcase innovative quality improvement initiatives, share evidence-based practices and research findings, highlight successful collaborations, and provide practical guidance for health care professionals to implement quality improvement initiatives in their organizations.

We believe that by sharing these insights and experiences, we can accelerate progress toward achieving equitable and high-quality health care for all individuals and communities, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender identity, or any other factor that may impact their access to care and health outcomes. We continue to welcome submissions from all health care professionals, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in quality improvement initiatives. Together, we can work toward a future where every individual has access to the highest quality of health care and experiences equitable health outcomes.

A comprehensive and collaborative approach to health care quality improvement, which is led by a peer review process and scientific publication of the progress, is a necessary part of ensuring that all patients receive high-quality care that is equitable and patient-centered. The future of health care quality will require further research and scholarly work in the areas of training and development, data infrastructure and analytics, as well as technology-enabled solutions that support continuous improvement and innovation. Health care organizations can build a culture of quality improvement that drives meaningful progress toward achieving health equity and improving health care delivery for all by sharing the output from their research.

Thank you for joining us in this mission to improve health care quality, promote optimal health care delivery methods, and create a world where health care is not only accessible, but also equitable and of the highest standards. Let us continue to work toward building a health care system that prioritizes patient-centered care. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that every individual receives the care they need and deserve.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

This year marks the publication of the 30th volume of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management (JCOM). As we celebrate JCOM’s 30th year, we look forward to the future and continuing the journey to inform quality improvement leaders and practitioners about advances in the field and share experiences. The path forward on this journey involves collaboration across stakeholders, the application of innovative improvement methods, and a commitment to achieving health equity. Health care quality improvement plans must prioritize patient-centered care, promote evidence-based practices and continuous learning, and establish clear metrics to measure progress and success. Furthermore, engagement with patients and communities must be at the forefront of any quality improvement plan, as their perspectives and experiences are essential to understanding and addressing the root causes of disparities in health care delivery. Additionally, effective communication and coordination among health care providers, administrators, policymakers, and other stakeholders are crucial to achieving sustainable improvements in health care quality.

JCOM’s mission is to serve as a platform for sharing knowledge, experiences, and best practices to improve patient outcomes and promote health equity. The vision encompasses a world where all individuals have access to high-quality, patient-centered health care that is free of disparities and achieves optimal health outcomes. JCOM’s strategy is to publish articles that showcase innovative quality improvement initiatives, share evidence-based practices and research findings, highlight successful collaborations, and provide practical guidance for health care professionals to implement quality improvement initiatives in their organizations.

We believe that by sharing these insights and experiences, we can accelerate progress toward achieving equitable and high-quality health care for all individuals and communities, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender identity, or any other factor that may impact their access to care and health outcomes. We continue to welcome submissions from all health care professionals, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in quality improvement initiatives. Together, we can work toward a future where every individual has access to the highest quality of health care and experiences equitable health outcomes.

A comprehensive and collaborative approach to health care quality improvement, which is led by a peer review process and scientific publication of the progress, is a necessary part of ensuring that all patients receive high-quality care that is equitable and patient-centered. The future of health care quality will require further research and scholarly work in the areas of training and development, data infrastructure and analytics, as well as technology-enabled solutions that support continuous improvement and innovation. Health care organizations can build a culture of quality improvement that drives meaningful progress toward achieving health equity and improving health care delivery for all by sharing the output from their research.

Thank you for joining us in this mission to improve health care quality, promote optimal health care delivery methods, and create a world where health care is not only accessible, but also equitable and of the highest standards. Let us continue to work toward building a health care system that prioritizes patient-centered care. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that every individual receives the care they need and deserve.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

This year marks the publication of the 30th volume of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management (JCOM). As we celebrate JCOM’s 30th year, we look forward to the future and continuing the journey to inform quality improvement leaders and practitioners about advances in the field and share experiences. The path forward on this journey involves collaboration across stakeholders, the application of innovative improvement methods, and a commitment to achieving health equity. Health care quality improvement plans must prioritize patient-centered care, promote evidence-based practices and continuous learning, and establish clear metrics to measure progress and success. Furthermore, engagement with patients and communities must be at the forefront of any quality improvement plan, as their perspectives and experiences are essential to understanding and addressing the root causes of disparities in health care delivery. Additionally, effective communication and coordination among health care providers, administrators, policymakers, and other stakeholders are crucial to achieving sustainable improvements in health care quality.

JCOM’s mission is to serve as a platform for sharing knowledge, experiences, and best practices to improve patient outcomes and promote health equity. The vision encompasses a world where all individuals have access to high-quality, patient-centered health care that is free of disparities and achieves optimal health outcomes. JCOM’s strategy is to publish articles that showcase innovative quality improvement initiatives, share evidence-based practices and research findings, highlight successful collaborations, and provide practical guidance for health care professionals to implement quality improvement initiatives in their organizations.

We believe that by sharing these insights and experiences, we can accelerate progress toward achieving equitable and high-quality health care for all individuals and communities, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender identity, or any other factor that may impact their access to care and health outcomes. We continue to welcome submissions from all health care professionals, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in quality improvement initiatives. Together, we can work toward a future where every individual has access to the highest quality of health care and experiences equitable health outcomes.

A comprehensive and collaborative approach to health care quality improvement, which is led by a peer review process and scientific publication of the progress, is a necessary part of ensuring that all patients receive high-quality care that is equitable and patient-centered. The future of health care quality will require further research and scholarly work in the areas of training and development, data infrastructure and analytics, as well as technology-enabled solutions that support continuous improvement and innovation. Health care organizations can build a culture of quality improvement that drives meaningful progress toward achieving health equity and improving health care delivery for all by sharing the output from their research.

Thank you for joining us in this mission to improve health care quality, promote optimal health care delivery methods, and create a world where health care is not only accessible, but also equitable and of the highest standards. Let us continue to work toward building a health care system that prioritizes patient-centered care. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that every individual receives the care they need and deserve.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

Study 1 Overview (Menon et al)

Objective: To determine whether a 0.25 mg/kg dose of intravenous tenecteplase is noninferior to intravenous alteplase 0.9 mg/kg for patients with acute ischemic stroke eligible for thrombolytic therapy.

Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was conducted at 22 primary and comprehensive stroke centers across Canada. A primary stroke center was defined as a hospital capable of offering intravenous thrombolysis to patients with acute ischemic stroke, while a comprehensive stroke center was able to offer thrombectomy services in addition. The involved centers also participated in Canadian quality improvement registries (either Quality Improvement and Clinical Research [QuiCR] or Optimizing Patient Treatment in Major Ischemic Stroke with EVT [OPTIMISE]) that track patient outcomes. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, and were eligible for thrombolysis according to Canadian guidelines.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg single dose, maximum of 25 mg) or intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg total dose to a maximum of 90 mg, delivered as a bolus followed by a continuous infusion). A total of 1600 patients were enrolled, with 816 randomly assigned to the tenecteplase arm and 784 to the alteplase arm; 1577 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 806 tenecteplase; n = 771 alteplase). The median age of enrollees was 74 years, and 52.1% of the ITT population were men.

Main outcome measures: In the ITT population, the primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin score (mRS) of 0 or 1 at 90 to 120 days post treatment. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, orolingual angioedema, extracranial bleeding that required blood transfusion (all within 24 hours of thrombolytic administration), and all-cause mortality at 90 days. The noninferiority threshold for intravenous tenecteplase was set as the lower 95% CI of the difference between the tenecteplase and alteplase groups in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome exceeding –5%.

Main results: The primary outcome of mRS of either 0 or 1 at 90 to 120 days of treatment occurred in 296 (36.9%) of the 802 patients assigned to tenecteplase and 266 (34.8%) of the 765 patients assigned to alteplase (unadjusted risk difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, –2.6 to 6.9). The prespecified noninferiority threshold was met. There were no significant differences between the groups in rates of intracerebral hemorrhage at 24 hours or 90-day all-cause mortality.

Conclusion: Intravenous tenecteplase is a reasonable alternative to alteplase for patients eligible for thrombolytic therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Wang et al)

Objective: To determine whether tenecteplase (dose 0.25 mg/kg) is noninferior to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke who are within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and eligible for thrombolytic therapy but either refused or were ineligible for endovascular thrombectomy.

Design: Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted at 53 centers across China and included patients 18 years of age or older who were within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were thrombolytic eligible, had a mRS ≤ 1 at enrollment, and had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score between 5 and 25. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 to either tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg (maximum dose 25 mg) or alteplase 0.9 mg/kg (maximum dose 90 mg, administered as a bolus followed by infusion). During the enrollment period (June 12, 2021, to May 29, 2022), a total of 1430 participants were enrolled, and, of those, 716 were randomly assigned to tenecteplase and 714 to alteplase. Six patients assigned to tenecteplase and 7 assigned to alteplase did not receive drugs. At 90 days, 5 in the tenecteplase group and 11 in the alteplase group were lost to follow up.

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a mRS of 0 or 1 at 90 days. The primary safety outcome was intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours. Safety outcomes included parenchymal hematoma 2, as defined by the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III; any intracranial or significant hemorrhage, as defined by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries criteria; and death from all causes at 90 days. Noninferiority for tenecteplase would be declared if the lower 97.5% 1-sided CI for the relative risk (RR) for the primary outcome did not cross 0.937.

Main results: In the modified ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 439 (62%) of the tenecteplase group and 405 (68%) of the alteplase group (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.16). This met the prespecified margin for noninferiority. Intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours was experienced by 15 (2%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 13 (2%) in the alteplase group (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.56-2.50). Death at 90 days occurred in 46 (7%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 35 (5%) in the alteplase group (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.86-2.01).

Conclusion: Tenecteplase was noninferior to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke who met criteria for thrombolysis and either refused or were ineligible for endovascular thrombectomy.

Commentary

Alteplase has been FDA-approved for managing acute ischemic stroke since 1996 and has demonstrated positive effects on functional outcomes. Drawbacks of alteplase therapy, however, include bleeding risk as well as cumbersome administration of a bolus dose followed by a 60-minute infusion. In recent years, the question of whether or not tenecteplase could replace alteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke has garnered much attention. Several features of tenecteplase make it an attractive option, including increased fibrin specificity, a longer half-life, and ease of administration as a single, rapid bolus dose. In phase 2 trials that compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg with alteplase, findings suggested the potential for early neurological improvement as well as improved outcomes at 90 days. While the role of tenecteplase in acute myocardial infarction has been well established due to ease of use and a favorable adverse-effect profile,¹ there is much less evidence from phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trials to secure the role of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke.²

Menon et al attempted to close this gap in the literature by conducting a randomized controlled clinical trial (AcT) comparing tenecteplase to alteplase in a Canadian patient population. The trial's patient population mirrors that of real-world data from global registries in terms of age, sex, and baseline stroke severity. In addition, the eligibility window of 4.5 hours from symptom onset as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for therapy are common to those utilized in other countries, making the findings generalizable. There were some limitations to the study, however, including the impact of COVID-19 on recruitment efforts as well as limitations of research infrastructure and staffing, which may have limited enrollment efforts at primary stroke centers. Nonetheless, the authors concluded that their results provide evidence that tenecteplase is comparable to alteplase, with similar functional and safety outcomes.

TRACE-2 focused on an Asian patient population and provided follow up to the dose-ranging TRACE-1 phase 2 trial. TRACE-1 showed that tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg had a similar safety profile to alteplase 0.9 mg/kg in Chinese patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke. TRACE-2 sought to establish noninferiority of tenecteplase and excluded patients who were ineligible for or refused thrombectomy. Interestingly, the tenecteplase arm, as the authors point out, had numerically greater mortality as well as intracranial hemorrhage, but these differences were not statistically significant between the treatment groups at 90 days. The TRACE-2 results parallel those of AcT, and although there were differences in ethnicity between the 2 trials, the authors cite this as evidence that the results are consistent and provide evidence for the role of tenecteplase in the management of acute ischemic stroke. Limitations of this trial include potential bias from its open-label design, as well as exclusion of patients with more severe strokes eligible for thrombectomy, which may limit generalizability to patients with more disabling strokes who could have a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Across the country, many organizations have adopted the off-label use of tenecteplase for managing fibrinolytic-eligible acute ischemic stroke patients. In most cases, the impetus for change is the ease of dosing and administration of tenecteplase compared to alteplase, while the inclusion and exclusion criteria and overall management remain the same. Timely administration of therapy in stroke is critical. This, along with other time constraints in stroke workflows, the weight-based calculation of alteplase doses, and alteplase’s administration method may lead to medication errors when using this agent to treat patients with acute stroke. The rapid, single-dose administration of tenecteplase removes many barriers that hospitals face when patients may need to be treated and then transferred to another site for further care. Without the worry to “drip and ship,” the completion of administration may allow for timely patient transfer and eliminate the need for monitoring of an infusion during transfer. For some organizations, there may be a potential for drug cost-savings as well as improved metrics, such as door-to-needle time, but the overall effects of switching from alteplase to tenecteplase remain to be seen. Currently, tenecteplase is included in stroke guidelines as a “reasonable choice,” though with a low level of evidence.³ However, these 2 studies support the role of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke treatment and may provide a foundation for further studies to establish the role of tenecteplase in the acute ischemic stroke population.

Practice Points

• Tenecteplase may be considered as an alternative to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke for patients who meet eligibility criteria for thrombolytics; this recommendation is included in the most recent stroke guidelines, although tenecteplase has not been demonstrated to be superior to alteplase.
• The ease of administration of tenecteplase as a single intravenous bolus dose represents a benefit compared to alteplase; it is an off-label use, however, and further studies are needed to establish the superiority of tenecteplase in terms of functional and safety outcomes.

– Carol Heunisch, PharmD, BCPS, BCCP
Pharmacy Department, NorthShore–Edward-Elmhurst Health, Evanston, IL

Study 1 Overview (Menon et al)

Objective: To determine whether a 0.25 mg/kg dose of intravenous tenecteplase is noninferior to intravenous alteplase 0.9 mg/kg for patients with acute ischemic stroke eligible for thrombolytic therapy.

Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was conducted at 22 primary and comprehensive stroke centers across Canada. A primary stroke center was defined as a hospital capable of offering intravenous thrombolysis to patients with acute ischemic stroke, while a comprehensive stroke center was able to offer thrombectomy services in addition. The involved centers also participated in Canadian quality improvement registries (either Quality Improvement and Clinical Research [QuiCR] or Optimizing Patient Treatment in Major Ischemic Stroke with EVT [OPTIMISE]) that track patient outcomes. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, and were eligible for thrombolysis according to Canadian guidelines.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg single dose, maximum of 25 mg) or intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg total dose to a maximum of 90 mg, delivered as a bolus followed by a continuous infusion). A total of 1600 patients were enrolled, with 816 randomly assigned to the tenecteplase arm and 784 to the alteplase arm; 1577 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 806 tenecteplase; n = 771 alteplase). The median age of enrollees was 74 years, and 52.1% of the ITT population were men.

Main outcome measures: In the ITT population, the primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin score (mRS) of 0 or 1 at 90 to 120 days post treatment. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, orolingual angioedema, extracranial bleeding that required blood transfusion (all within 24 hours of thrombolytic administration), and all-cause mortality at 90 days. The noninferiority threshold for intravenous tenecteplase was set as the lower 95% CI of the difference between the tenecteplase and alteplase groups in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome exceeding –5%.

Main results: The primary outcome of mRS of either 0 or 1 at 90 to 120 days of treatment occurred in 296 (36.9%) of the 802 patients assigned to tenecteplase and 266 (34.8%) of the 765 patients assigned to alteplase (unadjusted risk difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, –2.6 to 6.9). The prespecified noninferiority threshold was met. There were no significant differences between the groups in rates of intracerebral hemorrhage at 24 hours or 90-day all-cause mortality.

Conclusion: Intravenous tenecteplase is a reasonable alternative to alteplase for patients eligible for thrombolytic therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Wang et al)

Objective: To determine whether tenecteplase (dose 0.25 mg/kg) is noninferior to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke who are within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and eligible for thrombolytic therapy but either refused or were ineligible for endovascular thrombectomy.

Design: Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted at 53 centers across China and included patients 18 years of age or older who were within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were thrombolytic eligible, had a mRS ≤ 1 at enrollment, and had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score between 5 and 25. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 to either tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg (maximum dose 25 mg) or alteplase 0.9 mg/kg (maximum dose 90 mg, administered as a bolus followed by infusion). During the enrollment period (June 12, 2021, to May 29, 2022), a total of 1430 participants were enrolled, and, of those, 716 were randomly assigned to tenecteplase and 714 to alteplase. Six patients assigned to tenecteplase and 7 assigned to alteplase did not receive drugs. At 90 days, 5 in the tenecteplase group and 11 in the alteplase group were lost to follow up.

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a mRS of 0 or 1 at 90 days. The primary safety outcome was intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours. Safety outcomes included parenchymal hematoma 2, as defined by the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III; any intracranial or significant hemorrhage, as defined by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries criteria; and death from all causes at 90 days. Noninferiority for tenecteplase would be declared if the lower 97.5% 1-sided CI for the relative risk (RR) for the primary outcome did not cross 0.937.

Main results: In the modified ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 439 (62%) of the tenecteplase group and 405 (68%) of the alteplase group (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.16). This met the prespecified margin for noninferiority. Intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours was experienced by 15 (2%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 13 (2%) in the alteplase group (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.56-2.50). Death at 90 days occurred in 46 (7%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 35 (5%) in the alteplase group (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.86-2.01).

Conclusion: Tenecteplase was noninferior to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke who met criteria for thrombolysis and either refused or were ineligible for endovascular thrombectomy.

Commentary

Alteplase has been FDA-approved for managing acute ischemic stroke since 1996 and has demonstrated positive effects on functional outcomes. Drawbacks of alteplase therapy, however, include bleeding risk as well as cumbersome administration of a bolus dose followed by a 60-minute infusion. In recent years, the question of whether or not tenecteplase could replace alteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke has garnered much attention. Several features of tenecteplase make it an attractive option, including increased fibrin specificity, a longer half-life, and ease of administration as a single, rapid bolus dose. In phase 2 trials that compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg with alteplase, findings suggested the potential for early neurological improvement as well as improved outcomes at 90 days. While the role of tenecteplase in acute myocardial infarction has been well established due to ease of use and a favorable adverse-effect profile,¹ there is much less evidence from phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trials to secure the role of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke.²

Menon et al attempted to close this gap in the literature by conducting a randomized controlled clinical trial (AcT) comparing tenecteplase to alteplase in a Canadian patient population. The trial's patient population mirrors that of real-world data from global registries in terms of age, sex, and baseline stroke severity. In addition, the eligibility window of 4.5 hours from symptom onset as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for therapy are common to those utilized in other countries, making the findings generalizable. There were some limitations to the study, however, including the impact of COVID-19 on recruitment efforts as well as limitations of research infrastructure and staffing, which may have limited enrollment efforts at primary stroke centers. Nonetheless, the authors concluded that their results provide evidence that tenecteplase is comparable to alteplase, with similar functional and safety outcomes.

TRACE-2 focused on an Asian patient population and provided follow up to the dose-ranging TRACE-1 phase 2 trial. TRACE-1 showed that tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg had a similar safety profile to alteplase 0.9 mg/kg in Chinese patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke. TRACE-2 sought to establish noninferiority of tenecteplase and excluded patients who were ineligible for or refused thrombectomy. Interestingly, the tenecteplase arm, as the authors point out, had numerically greater mortality as well as intracranial hemorrhage, but these differences were not statistically significant between the treatment groups at 90 days. The TRACE-2 results parallel those of AcT, and although there were differences in ethnicity between the 2 trials, the authors cite this as evidence that the results are consistent and provide evidence for the role of tenecteplase in the management of acute ischemic stroke. Limitations of this trial include potential bias from its open-label design, as well as exclusion of patients with more severe strokes eligible for thrombectomy, which may limit generalizability to patients with more disabling strokes who could have a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Across the country, many organizations have adopted the off-label use of tenecteplase for managing fibrinolytic-eligible acute ischemic stroke patients. In most cases, the impetus for change is the ease of dosing and administration of tenecteplase compared to alteplase, while the inclusion and exclusion criteria and overall management remain the same. Timely administration of therapy in stroke is critical. This, along with other time constraints in stroke workflows, the weight-based calculation of alteplase doses, and alteplase’s administration method may lead to medication errors when using this agent to treat patients with acute stroke. The rapid, single-dose administration of tenecteplase removes many barriers that hospitals face when patients may need to be treated and then transferred to another site for further care. Without the worry to “drip and ship,” the completion of administration may allow for timely patient transfer and eliminate the need for monitoring of an infusion during transfer. For some organizations, there may be a potential for drug cost-savings as well as improved metrics, such as door-to-needle time, but the overall effects of switching from alteplase to tenecteplase remain to be seen. Currently, tenecteplase is included in stroke guidelines as a “reasonable choice,” though with a low level of evidence.³ However, these 2 studies support the role of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke treatment and may provide a foundation for further studies to establish the role of tenecteplase in the acute ischemic stroke population.

Practice Points

• Tenecteplase may be considered as an alternative to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke for patients who meet eligibility criteria for thrombolytics; this recommendation is included in the most recent stroke guidelines, although tenecteplase has not been demonstrated to be superior to alteplase.
• The ease of administration of tenecteplase as a single intravenous bolus dose represents a benefit compared to alteplase; it is an off-label use, however, and further studies are needed to establish the superiority of tenecteplase in terms of functional and safety outcomes.

– Carol Heunisch, PharmD, BCPS, BCCP
Pharmacy Department, NorthShore–Edward-Elmhurst Health, Evanston, IL

Study 1 Overview (Menon et al)

Objective: To determine whether a 0.25 mg/kg dose of intravenous tenecteplase is noninferior to intravenous alteplase 0.9 mg/kg for patients with acute ischemic stroke eligible for thrombolytic therapy.

Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was conducted at 22 primary and comprehensive stroke centers across Canada. A primary stroke center was defined as a hospital capable of offering intravenous thrombolysis to patients with acute ischemic stroke, while a comprehensive stroke center was able to offer thrombectomy services in addition. The involved centers also participated in Canadian quality improvement registries (either Quality Improvement and Clinical Research [QuiCR] or Optimizing Patient Treatment in Major Ischemic Stroke with EVT [OPTIMISE]) that track patient outcomes. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, and were eligible for thrombolysis according to Canadian guidelines.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg single dose, maximum of 25 mg) or intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg total dose to a maximum of 90 mg, delivered as a bolus followed by a continuous infusion). A total of 1600 patients were enrolled, with 816 randomly assigned to the tenecteplase arm and 784 to the alteplase arm; 1577 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 806 tenecteplase; n = 771 alteplase). The median age of enrollees was 74 years, and 52.1% of the ITT population were men.

Main outcome measures: In the ITT population, the primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin score (mRS) of 0 or 1 at 90 to 120 days post treatment. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, orolingual angioedema, extracranial bleeding that required blood transfusion (all within 24 hours of thrombolytic administration), and all-cause mortality at 90 days. The noninferiority threshold for intravenous tenecteplase was set as the lower 95% CI of the difference between the tenecteplase and alteplase groups in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome exceeding –5%.

Main results: The primary outcome of mRS of either 0 or 1 at 90 to 120 days of treatment occurred in 296 (36.9%) of the 802 patients assigned to tenecteplase and 266 (34.8%) of the 765 patients assigned to alteplase (unadjusted risk difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, –2.6 to 6.9). The prespecified noninferiority threshold was met. There were no significant differences between the groups in rates of intracerebral hemorrhage at 24 hours or 90-day all-cause mortality.

Conclusion: Intravenous tenecteplase is a reasonable alternative to alteplase for patients eligible for thrombolytic therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Wang et al)

Objective: To determine whether tenecteplase (dose 0.25 mg/kg) is noninferior to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke who are within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and eligible for thrombolytic therapy but either refused or were ineligible for endovascular thrombectomy.

Design: Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted at 53 centers across China and included patients 18 years of age or older who were within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were thrombolytic eligible, had a mRS ≤ 1 at enrollment, and had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score between 5 and 25. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 to either tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg (maximum dose 25 mg) or alteplase 0.9 mg/kg (maximum dose 90 mg, administered as a bolus followed by infusion). During the enrollment period (June 12, 2021, to May 29, 2022), a total of 1430 participants were enrolled, and, of those, 716 were randomly assigned to tenecteplase and 714 to alteplase. Six patients assigned to tenecteplase and 7 assigned to alteplase did not receive drugs. At 90 days, 5 in the tenecteplase group and 11 in the alteplase group were lost to follow up.

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a mRS of 0 or 1 at 90 days. The primary safety outcome was intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours. Safety outcomes included parenchymal hematoma 2, as defined by the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III; any intracranial or significant hemorrhage, as defined by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries criteria; and death from all causes at 90 days. Noninferiority for tenecteplase would be declared if the lower 97.5% 1-sided CI for the relative risk (RR) for the primary outcome did not cross 0.937.

Main results: In the modified ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 439 (62%) of the tenecteplase group and 405 (68%) of the alteplase group (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.16). This met the prespecified margin for noninferiority. Intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours was experienced by 15 (2%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 13 (2%) in the alteplase group (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.56-2.50). Death at 90 days occurred in 46 (7%) patients in the tenecteplase group and 35 (5%) in the alteplase group (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.86-2.01).

Conclusion: Tenecteplase was noninferior to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke who met criteria for thrombolysis and either refused or were ineligible for endovascular thrombectomy.

Commentary

Alteplase has been FDA-approved for managing acute ischemic stroke since 1996 and has demonstrated positive effects on functional outcomes. Drawbacks of alteplase therapy, however, include bleeding risk as well as cumbersome administration of a bolus dose followed by a 60-minute infusion. In recent years, the question of whether or not tenecteplase could replace alteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke has garnered much attention. Several features of tenecteplase make it an attractive option, including increased fibrin specificity, a longer half-life, and ease of administration as a single, rapid bolus dose. In phase 2 trials that compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg with alteplase, findings suggested the potential for early neurological improvement as well as improved outcomes at 90 days. While the role of tenecteplase in acute myocardial infarction has been well established due to ease of use and a favorable adverse-effect profile,¹ there is much less evidence from phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trials to secure the role of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke.²

Menon et al attempted to close this gap in the literature by conducting a randomized controlled clinical trial (AcT) comparing tenecteplase to alteplase in a Canadian patient population. The trial's patient population mirrors that of real-world data from global registries in terms of age, sex, and baseline stroke severity. In addition, the eligibility window of 4.5 hours from symptom onset as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for therapy are common to those utilized in other countries, making the findings generalizable. There were some limitations to the study, however, including the impact of COVID-19 on recruitment efforts as well as limitations of research infrastructure and staffing, which may have limited enrollment efforts at primary stroke centers. Nonetheless, the authors concluded that their results provide evidence that tenecteplase is comparable to alteplase, with similar functional and safety outcomes.

TRACE-2 focused on an Asian patient population and provided follow up to the dose-ranging TRACE-1 phase 2 trial. TRACE-1 showed that tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg had a similar safety profile to alteplase 0.9 mg/kg in Chinese patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke. TRACE-2 sought to establish noninferiority of tenecteplase and excluded patients who were ineligible for or refused thrombectomy. Interestingly, the tenecteplase arm, as the authors point out, had numerically greater mortality as well as intracranial hemorrhage, but these differences were not statistically significant between the treatment groups at 90 days. The TRACE-2 results parallel those of AcT, and although there were differences in ethnicity between the 2 trials, the authors cite this as evidence that the results are consistent and provide evidence for the role of tenecteplase in the management of acute ischemic stroke. Limitations of this trial include potential bias from its open-label design, as well as exclusion of patients with more severe strokes eligible for thrombectomy, which may limit generalizability to patients with more disabling strokes who could have a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Across the country, many organizations have adopted the off-label use of tenecteplase for managing fibrinolytic-eligible acute ischemic stroke patients. In most cases, the impetus for change is the ease of dosing and administration of tenecteplase compared to alteplase, while the inclusion and exclusion criteria and overall management remain the same. Timely administration of therapy in stroke is critical. This, along with other time constraints in stroke workflows, the weight-based calculation of alteplase doses, and alteplase’s administration method may lead to medication errors when using this agent to treat patients with acute stroke. The rapid, single-dose administration of tenecteplase removes many barriers that hospitals face when patients may need to be treated and then transferred to another site for further care. Without the worry to “drip and ship,” the completion of administration may allow for timely patient transfer and eliminate the need for monitoring of an infusion during transfer. For some organizations, there may be a potential for drug cost-savings as well as improved metrics, such as door-to-needle time, but the overall effects of switching from alteplase to tenecteplase remain to be seen. Currently, tenecteplase is included in stroke guidelines as a “reasonable choice,” though with a low level of evidence.³ However, these 2 studies support the role of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke treatment and may provide a foundation for further studies to establish the role of tenecteplase in the acute ischemic stroke population.

Practice Points

• Tenecteplase may be considered as an alternative to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke for patients who meet eligibility criteria for thrombolytics; this recommendation is included in the most recent stroke guidelines, although tenecteplase has not been demonstrated to be superior to alteplase.
• The ease of administration of tenecteplase as a single intravenous bolus dose represents a benefit compared to alteplase; it is an off-label use, however, and further studies are needed to establish the superiority of tenecteplase in terms of functional and safety outcomes.

– Carol Heunisch, PharmD, BCPS, BCCP
Pharmacy Department, NorthShore–Edward-Elmhurst Health, Evanston, IL

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) of wounds has become a foundational tool in the armamentarium of wound care specialists. Using a system consisting of a sponge, semi-occlusive barrier, and fluid collection device, VAC systems apply constant negative pressure resulting in macro and micro deformation to a wound, stabilization of the wound environment, and removal of inflammatory factors in wound fluid.¹ These conditions allow for the removal of drainage and fluid from a wound bed, reduced edema and inflammation, reduced bacterial load, recruitment of healing factors, approximation of wound edges, and increased blood flow to the wound.²

In complex, infected wounds, a variation of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) via the instillation of topical antibiotics (instillation VAC) has been used.³ This variation has been advantageous even in soft tissue fungal infections. Early and aggressive treatment of such infections is critical to prevent dissemination, particularly in aggressive infections, such as mucormycosis.⁴ We present a case of a patient with a mucormycosis infection of his left Achilles tendon and overlying skin who was successfully treated with surgical debridement and wound care with instillation NPWT with topical amphotericin B.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old man underwent left Achilles tendon reconstruction with allograft after a complete tear during exercise. He had no relevant medical history and was otherwise healthy, which he attributed to working out daily. About a week after the operation, he began having incisional breakdown, prompting presentation to an emergency department. There, he received IV antibiotics along with multiple debridements. After the wound failed to improve and intra-operative cultures grew mucormycosis, he was transferred to our facility for a higher level of care. On admission, he was immediately given IV amphotericin B and scheduled for repeat debridement.

After 1 prior debridement and 10 total days of IV amphotericin, a repeat debridement was performed. After the debridement, the installation VAC was applied to the patient’s left lower extremity wound with an instilling fluid of amphotericin B and the settings as follows: smart phase instill volume, 110 mL; soak time, 3.5 hours; target pressure, 125 mm Hg; intensity, low; and VAC therapy mode, continuous. After 5 days, the wound bed appeared clean without overt signs of infection. However, due to some toxicity to healthy surrounding soft tissue, the instillation VAC was discontinued and standard NPWT was started. The patient underwent 2 additional rounds of debridement with partial delayed closure. Four weeks after discontinuation of the instillation VAC, the wound appeared healthy and granulated so the patient underwent split-thickness skin grafting to the left posterior ankle. He subsequently completed a course of oral antifungal medication as an outpatient.

The patient was seen in the outpatient clinic for 14 months from the initial mucormycosis infection (Figure).

Discussion

Mucormycosis is an infection caused by fungi in the class Zygomycetes and of the order Mucorales that typically occurs in immunocompromised patients, especially those with diabetic ketoacidosis and neutropenia. Given that this patient had no relevant medical history and was otherwise healthy, he was at extremely low risk of this type of infection. In this patient’s case, the spores of this nonseptate hyphae wide-branching species were most likely introduced at the time of left Achilles tendon repair. Mucormycosis is progressive and can be fatal unless treated, with a mortality rate approaching 70%.⁵ The rarity and heterogeneity of mucormycosis make treatment variable.⁶ No prospective or randomized clinical trials exist in plastic surgery literature.

The use of wound VAC in combination with the instillation of amphotericin B to treat cutaneous mucormycosis is not well documented. Mucormycosis infections are traditionally addressed with surgical debridement and antifungal therapy, specifically IV amphotericin B.^7,8 As previously noted, NPWT has become the gold standard in treating complex wounds.³ Additionally, wound VAC therapy with instillation has been noted in the literature as a reliable method to treat bacteria-infected wounds, providing a shorter treatment period and earlier wound closure.⁹ Instillation VAC therapy has proven particularly useful in complex, infected wounds, such as aggressive fungal infections.

Mucormycosis treatment is challenging particularly in the extremities as management must balance both mortality and limb salvage. In this case, the use of NPWT with wound VAC and intervals of instilling amphotericin B facilitated infection control in this lower extremity mucormycosis infection. The significant adverse effect profile of amphotericin B, particularly the nephrotoxicity, should be seriously considered when deciding the treatment regimen for patients affected by mucormycosis. Locally, topical amphotericin B has been reported to cause blistering, itchiness, redness, peeling, and dryness. However, topical preparations of amphotericin B are nontoxic unlike their IV counterpart, able to cross the physiological barriers of the skin while simultaneously targeting macrophages in the dermis and epidermis.¹⁰

Conclusions

Although the mainstay of treatment for systemic mucormycosis is radical debridement and IV amphotericin B, a more localized infection may benefit from an adjunct like an instillation wound VAC with topical amphotericin B, as presented in this case study. Swift treatment with wound VAC was beneficial in the overall recovery and tissue healing of this patient and may be beneficial in similar cases.

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) of wounds has become a foundational tool in the armamentarium of wound care specialists. Using a system consisting of a sponge, semi-occlusive barrier, and fluid collection device, VAC systems apply constant negative pressure resulting in macro and micro deformation to a wound, stabilization of the wound environment, and removal of inflammatory factors in wound fluid.¹ These conditions allow for the removal of drainage and fluid from a wound bed, reduced edema and inflammation, reduced bacterial load, recruitment of healing factors, approximation of wound edges, and increased blood flow to the wound.²

In complex, infected wounds, a variation of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) via the instillation of topical antibiotics (instillation VAC) has been used.³ This variation has been advantageous even in soft tissue fungal infections. Early and aggressive treatment of such infections is critical to prevent dissemination, particularly in aggressive infections, such as mucormycosis.⁴ We present a case of a patient with a mucormycosis infection of his left Achilles tendon and overlying skin who was successfully treated with surgical debridement and wound care with instillation NPWT with topical amphotericin B.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old man underwent left Achilles tendon reconstruction with allograft after a complete tear during exercise. He had no relevant medical history and was otherwise healthy, which he attributed to working out daily. About a week after the operation, he began having incisional breakdown, prompting presentation to an emergency department. There, he received IV antibiotics along with multiple debridements. After the wound failed to improve and intra-operative cultures grew mucormycosis, he was transferred to our facility for a higher level of care. On admission, he was immediately given IV amphotericin B and scheduled for repeat debridement.

After 1 prior debridement and 10 total days of IV amphotericin, a repeat debridement was performed. After the debridement, the installation VAC was applied to the patient’s left lower extremity wound with an instilling fluid of amphotericin B and the settings as follows: smart phase instill volume, 110 mL; soak time, 3.5 hours; target pressure, 125 mm Hg; intensity, low; and VAC therapy mode, continuous. After 5 days, the wound bed appeared clean without overt signs of infection. However, due to some toxicity to healthy surrounding soft tissue, the instillation VAC was discontinued and standard NPWT was started. The patient underwent 2 additional rounds of debridement with partial delayed closure. Four weeks after discontinuation of the instillation VAC, the wound appeared healthy and granulated so the patient underwent split-thickness skin grafting to the left posterior ankle. He subsequently completed a course of oral antifungal medication as an outpatient.

The patient was seen in the outpatient clinic for 14 months from the initial mucormycosis infection (Figure).

Discussion

Mucormycosis is an infection caused by fungi in the class Zygomycetes and of the order Mucorales that typically occurs in immunocompromised patients, especially those with diabetic ketoacidosis and neutropenia. Given that this patient had no relevant medical history and was otherwise healthy, he was at extremely low risk of this type of infection. In this patient’s case, the spores of this nonseptate hyphae wide-branching species were most likely introduced at the time of left Achilles tendon repair. Mucormycosis is progressive and can be fatal unless treated, with a mortality rate approaching 70%.⁵ The rarity and heterogeneity of mucormycosis make treatment variable.⁶ No prospective or randomized clinical trials exist in plastic surgery literature.

The use of wound VAC in combination with the instillation of amphotericin B to treat cutaneous mucormycosis is not well documented. Mucormycosis infections are traditionally addressed with surgical debridement and antifungal therapy, specifically IV amphotericin B.^7,8 As previously noted, NPWT has become the gold standard in treating complex wounds.³ Additionally, wound VAC therapy with instillation has been noted in the literature as a reliable method to treat bacteria-infected wounds, providing a shorter treatment period and earlier wound closure.⁹ Instillation VAC therapy has proven particularly useful in complex, infected wounds, such as aggressive fungal infections.

Mucormycosis treatment is challenging particularly in the extremities as management must balance both mortality and limb salvage. In this case, the use of NPWT with wound VAC and intervals of instilling amphotericin B facilitated infection control in this lower extremity mucormycosis infection. The significant adverse effect profile of amphotericin B, particularly the nephrotoxicity, should be seriously considered when deciding the treatment regimen for patients affected by mucormycosis. Locally, topical amphotericin B has been reported to cause blistering, itchiness, redness, peeling, and dryness. However, topical preparations of amphotericin B are nontoxic unlike their IV counterpart, able to cross the physiological barriers of the skin while simultaneously targeting macrophages in the dermis and epidermis.¹⁰

Conclusions

Although the mainstay of treatment for systemic mucormycosis is radical debridement and IV amphotericin B, a more localized infection may benefit from an adjunct like an instillation wound VAC with topical amphotericin B, as presented in this case study. Swift treatment with wound VAC was beneficial in the overall recovery and tissue healing of this patient and may be beneficial in similar cases.

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) of wounds has become a foundational tool in the armamentarium of wound care specialists. Using a system consisting of a sponge, semi-occlusive barrier, and fluid collection device, VAC systems apply constant negative pressure resulting in macro and micro deformation to a wound, stabilization of the wound environment, and removal of inflammatory factors in wound fluid.¹ These conditions allow for the removal of drainage and fluid from a wound bed, reduced edema and inflammation, reduced bacterial load, recruitment of healing factors, approximation of wound edges, and increased blood flow to the wound.²

In complex, infected wounds, a variation of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) via the instillation of topical antibiotics (instillation VAC) has been used.³ This variation has been advantageous even in soft tissue fungal infections. Early and aggressive treatment of such infections is critical to prevent dissemination, particularly in aggressive infections, such as mucormycosis.⁴ We present a case of a patient with a mucormycosis infection of his left Achilles tendon and overlying skin who was successfully treated with surgical debridement and wound care with instillation NPWT with topical amphotericin B.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old man underwent left Achilles tendon reconstruction with allograft after a complete tear during exercise. He had no relevant medical history and was otherwise healthy, which he attributed to working out daily. About a week after the operation, he began having incisional breakdown, prompting presentation to an emergency department. There, he received IV antibiotics along with multiple debridements. After the wound failed to improve and intra-operative cultures grew mucormycosis, he was transferred to our facility for a higher level of care. On admission, he was immediately given IV amphotericin B and scheduled for repeat debridement.

After 1 prior debridement and 10 total days of IV amphotericin, a repeat debridement was performed. After the debridement, the installation VAC was applied to the patient’s left lower extremity wound with an instilling fluid of amphotericin B and the settings as follows: smart phase instill volume, 110 mL; soak time, 3.5 hours; target pressure, 125 mm Hg; intensity, low; and VAC therapy mode, continuous. After 5 days, the wound bed appeared clean without overt signs of infection. However, due to some toxicity to healthy surrounding soft tissue, the instillation VAC was discontinued and standard NPWT was started. The patient underwent 2 additional rounds of debridement with partial delayed closure. Four weeks after discontinuation of the instillation VAC, the wound appeared healthy and granulated so the patient underwent split-thickness skin grafting to the left posterior ankle. He subsequently completed a course of oral antifungal medication as an outpatient.

The patient was seen in the outpatient clinic for 14 months from the initial mucormycosis infection (Figure).

Discussion

Mucormycosis is an infection caused by fungi in the class Zygomycetes and of the order Mucorales that typically occurs in immunocompromised patients, especially those with diabetic ketoacidosis and neutropenia. Given that this patient had no relevant medical history and was otherwise healthy, he was at extremely low risk of this type of infection. In this patient’s case, the spores of this nonseptate hyphae wide-branching species were most likely introduced at the time of left Achilles tendon repair. Mucormycosis is progressive and can be fatal unless treated, with a mortality rate approaching 70%.⁵ The rarity and heterogeneity of mucormycosis make treatment variable.⁶ No prospective or randomized clinical trials exist in plastic surgery literature.

The use of wound VAC in combination with the instillation of amphotericin B to treat cutaneous mucormycosis is not well documented. Mucormycosis infections are traditionally addressed with surgical debridement and antifungal therapy, specifically IV amphotericin B.^7,8 As previously noted, NPWT has become the gold standard in treating complex wounds.³ Additionally, wound VAC therapy with instillation has been noted in the literature as a reliable method to treat bacteria-infected wounds, providing a shorter treatment period and earlier wound closure.⁹ Instillation VAC therapy has proven particularly useful in complex, infected wounds, such as aggressive fungal infections.

Mucormycosis treatment is challenging particularly in the extremities as management must balance both mortality and limb salvage. In this case, the use of NPWT with wound VAC and intervals of instilling amphotericin B facilitated infection control in this lower extremity mucormycosis infection. The significant adverse effect profile of amphotericin B, particularly the nephrotoxicity, should be seriously considered when deciding the treatment regimen for patients affected by mucormycosis. Locally, topical amphotericin B has been reported to cause blistering, itchiness, redness, peeling, and dryness. However, topical preparations of amphotericin B are nontoxic unlike their IV counterpart, able to cross the physiological barriers of the skin while simultaneously targeting macrophages in the dermis and epidermis.¹⁰

Conclusions

Although the mainstay of treatment for systemic mucormycosis is radical debridement and IV amphotericin B, a more localized infection may benefit from an adjunct like an instillation wound VAC with topical amphotericin B, as presented in this case study. Swift treatment with wound VAC was beneficial in the overall recovery and tissue healing of this patient and may be beneficial in similar cases.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Promoting a culture of safety is a critical component of improving health care quality. Recognizing staff who stop the line for safety can positively impact the growth of a culture of safety. The purpose of this initiative was to demonstrate to staff the importance of speaking up for safety and being acknowledged for doing so.

Methods: Following a review of the literature on safety awards programs and their role in promoting a culture of safety in health care covering the period 2017 to 2020, a formal process was developed and implemented to disseminate safety awards to employees.

Results: During the initial 18 months of the initiative, a total of 59 awards were presented. The awards were well received by the recipients and other staff members. Within this period, adjustments were made to enhance the scope and reach of the program.

Conclusion: Recognizing staff behaviors that support a culture of safety is important for improving health care quality and employee engagement. Future research should focus on a formal evaluation of the impact of safety awards programs on patient safety outcomes.

Keywords: patient safety, culture of safety, incident reporting, near miss.

A key aspect of improving health care quality is promoting and sustaining a culture of safety in the workplace. Improving the quality of health care services and systems involves making informed choices regarding the types of strategies to implement.¹ An essential aspect of supporting a safety culture is safety-event reporting. To approach the goal of zero harm, all safety events, whether they result in actual harm or are considered near misses, need to be reported. Near-miss events are errors that occur while care is being provided but are detected and corrected before harm reaches the patient.^1-3 Near-miss reporting plays a critical role in helping to identify and correct weaknesses in health care delivery systems and processes.⁴ However, evidence shows that there are a multitude of barriers to the reporting of near-miss events, such as fear of punitive actions, additional workload, unsupportive work environments, a culture with poor psychological safety, knowledge deficit, and lack of recognition of staff who do report near misses.^4-11

According to The Joint Commission (TJC), acknowledging health care team members who recognize and report unsafe conditions that provide insight for improving patient safety is a key method for promoting the reporting of near-miss events.⁶ As a result, some health care organizations and patient safety agencies have started to institute some form of recognition for their employees in the realm of safety.^8-10 The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority offers exceptional guidance for creating a safety awards program to promote a culture of safety.¹² Furthermore, TJC supports recognizing individuals and health care teams who identify and report near misses, or who have suggestions for initiatives to promote patient safety, with “good catch” awards. Individuals or teams working to promote and sustain a culture of safety should be recognized for their efforts. Acknowledging “good catches” to reward the identification, communication, and resolution of safety issues is an effective strategy for improving patient safety and health care quality.^6,8

This quality improvement (QI) initiative was undertaken to demonstrate to staff that, in building an organizational culture of safety, it is important that staff be encouraged to speak up for safety and be acknowledged for doing so. If health care organizations want staff to be motivated to report near misses and improve safety and health care quality, the culture needs to shift from focusing on blame to incentivizing individuals and teams to speak up when they have concerns.^8-10 Although deciding which safety actions are worthy of recognition can be challenging, recognizing all safe acts, regardless of how big or small they are perceived to be, is important. This QI initiative aimed to establish a tiered approach to recognize staff members for various categories of safety acts.

METHODS

A review of the literature from January 2017 to May 2020 for peer-reviewed publications regarding how other organizations implemented safety award programs to promote a culture of safety resulted in a dearth of evidence. This prompted us at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System to develop and implement a formal program to disseminate safety awards to employees.

Program Launch and Promotion

In 2020, our institution embarked on a journey to high reliability with the goal of approaching zero harm. As part of efforts to promote a culture of safety, the hospital’s High Reliability Organization (HRO) team worked to develop a safety awards recognition program. Prior to the launch, the hospital’s patient safety committee recognized staff members through the medical center safety event reporting system (the Joint Patient Safety Reporting system [JPSR]) or through direct communication with staff members on safety actions they were engaged in. JPSR is the Veterans Health Administration National Center for Patient Safety incident reporting system for reporting, tracking, and trending of patient incidents in a national database. The award consisted of a certificate presented by the patient safety committee chairpersons to the employee in front of their peers in their respective work area. Hospital leadership was not involved in the safety awards recognition program at that time. No nomination process existed prior to our QI launch.

Once the QI initiative was launched and marketed heavily at staff meetings, we started to receive nominations for actions that were truly exceptional, while many others were submitted for behaviors that were within the day-to-day scope of practice of the staff member. For those early nominations that did not meet criteria for an award, we thanked staff for their submissions with a gentle statement that their nomination did not meet the criteria for an award. After following this practice for a few weeks, we became concerned that if we did not acknowledge the staff who came forward to request recognition for their routine work that supported safety, we could risk losing their engagement in a culture of safety. As such, we decided to create 3 levels of awards to recognize behaviors that went above and beyond while also acknowledging staff for actions within their scope of practice. Additionally, hospital leadership wanted to ensure that all staff recognize that their safety efforts are valued by leadership and that that sense of value will hopefully contribute to a culture of safety over time.

Initially, the single award system was called the “Good Catch Award” to acknowledge staff who go above and beyond to speak up and take action when they have safety concerns. This particular recognition includes a certificate, an encased baseball card that has been personalized by including the staff member’s picture and safety event identified, a stress-release baseball, and a stick of Bazooka gum (similar to what used to come in baseball cards packs). The award is presented to employees in their work area by the HRO and patient safety teams and includes representatives from the executive leadership team (ELT). The safety event identified is described by an ELT member, and all items are presented to the employee. Participation by the leadership team communicates how much the work being done to promote a culture of safety and advance quality health care is appreciated. This action also encourages others in the organization to identify and report safety concerns.¹³

With the rollout of the QI initiative, the volume of nominations submitted quickly increased (eg, approximately 1 every 2 months before to 3 per month following implementation). Frequently, nominations were for actions believed to be within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities. Our institution’s leadership team quickly recognized that, as an organization, not diminishing the importance of the “Good Catch Award” was important. However, the leadership team also wanted to encourage nominations from employees that involved safety issues that were part of the employee’s scope of responsibilities. As a result, 2 additional and equally notable award tiers were established, with specific criteria created for each.¹⁴ The addition of the other awards was instrumental in getting the leadership team to feel confident that all staff were being recognized for their commitment to patient safety.

The original Good Catch Award was labelled as a Level 1 award. The Level 2 safety recognition award, named the HRO Safety Champion Award, is given to employees who stop the line for a safety concern within their scope of practice and also participate as part of a team to investigate and improve processes to avoid recurring safety concerns in the future. For the Level Two award, a certificate is presented to an employee by the hospital’s HRO lead, HRO physician champion, patient safety manager, immediate supervisor, and peers. With the Level 3 award, the Culture of Safety Appreciation Award, individuals are recognized for addressing safety concerns within their assigned scope of responsibilities. Recognition is bestowed by an email of appreciation sent to the employee, acknowledging their commitment to promoting a culture of safety and quality health care. The recipient’s direct supervisor and other hospital leaders are copied on the message.¹⁴ See Table 1 for a comparison of awards.

Our institution’s HRO and patient safety teams utilized many additional venues to disseminate information regarding awardees and their actions. These included our monthly HRO newsletter, monthly safety forums, and biweekly Team Connecticut Healthcare system-wide huddles.

Nomination Process

Awards nominations are submitted via the hospital intranet homepage, where there is an “HRO Safety Award Nomination” icon. Once a staff member clicks the icon, a template opens asking for information, such as the reason for the nomination submission, and then walks them through the template using the CAR (C-context, A-actions, and R-results)¹⁵ format for describing the situation, identifying actions taken, and specifying the outcome of the action. Emails with award nominations can also be sent to the HRO lead, HRO champion, or Patient Safety Committee co-chairs. Calls for nominations are made at several venues attended by employees as well as supervisors. These include monthly safety forums, biweekly Team Connecticut Healthcare system-wide huddles, supervisory staff meetings, department and unit-based staff meetings, and many other formal and informal settings. This QI initiative has allowed us to capture potential awardees through several avenues, including self-nominations. All nominations are reviewed by a safety awards committee. Each committee member ranks the nomination as a Level 1, 2, or 3 award. For nominations where conflicting scores are obtained, the committee discusses the nomination together to resolve discrepancies.

Needed Resources

Material resources required for this QI initiative include certificate paper, plastic baseball card sleeves, stress-release baseballs, and Bazooka gum. The largest resource investment was the time needed to support the initiative. This included the time spent scheduling the Level 1 and 2 award presentations with staff and leadership. Time was also required to put the individual award packages together, which included printing the paper certificates, obtaining awardee pictures, placing them with their safety stories in a plastic baseball card sleeve, and arranging for the hospital photographer to take pictures of the awardees with their peers and leaders.

RESULTS

Prior to this QI initiative launch, 14 awards were given out over the preceding 2-year period. During the initial 18 months of the initiative (December 2020 to June 2022), 59 awards were presented (Level 1, n = 26; Level 2, n = 22; and Level 3, n = 11). Looking further into the Level 1 awards presented, 25 awardees worked in clinical roles and 1 in a nonclinical position (Table 2). The awardees represented multidisciplinary areas, including medical/surgical (med/surg) inpatient units, anesthesia, operating room, pharmacy, mental health clinics, surgical intensive care, specialty care clinics, and nutrition and food services. With the Level 2 awards, 18 clinical staff and 4 nonclinical staff received awards from the areas of med/surg inpatient, outpatient surgical suites, the medical center director’s office, radiology, pharmacy, primary care, facilities management, environmental management, infection prevention, and emergency services. All Level 3 awardees were from clinical areas, including primary care, hospital education, sterile processing, pharmacies, operating rooms, and med/surg inpatient units.

With the inception of this QI initiative, our organization has begun to see trends reflecting increased reporting of both actual and close-call events in JPSR (Figure 1).

With the inclusion of information regarding awardees and their actions in monthly safety forums, attendance at these forums has increased from an average of 64 attendees per month in 2021 to an average of 131 attendees per month in 2022 (Figure 2).

Finally, our organization’s annual All-Employee Survey results have shown incremental increases in staff reporting feeling psychologically safe and not fearing reprisal (Figure 3). It is important to note that there may be other contributing factors to these incremental changes.

Stories From the 3 Award Categories

Level 1 – Good Catch Award. M.S. was assigned as a continuous safety monitor, or “sitter,” on one of the med/surg inpatient units. M.S. arrived at the bedside and asked for a report on the patient at a change in shift. The report stated that the patient was sleeping and had not moved in a while. M.S. set about to perform the functions of a sitter and did her usual tasks in cleaning and tidying the room for the patient for breakfast and taking care of all items in the room, in general. M.S. introduced herself to the patient, who she thought might wake up because of her speaking to him. She thought the patient was in an odd position, and knowing that a patient should be a little further up in the bed, she tried with touch to awaken him to adjust his position. M.S. found that the patient was rather chilly to the touch and immediately became concerned. She continued to attempt to rouse the patient. M.S. called for the nurse and began to adjust the patient’s position. M.S. insisted that the patient was cold and “something was wrong.” A set of vitals was taken and a rapid response team code was called. The patient was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit to receive a higher level of care. If not for the diligence and caring attitude of M.S., this patient may have had a very poor outcome.

Reason for criteria being met: The scope of practice of a sitter is to be present in a patient’s room to monitor for falls and overall safety. This employee noticed that the patient was not responsive to verbal or tactile stimuli. Her immediate reporting of her concern to the nurse resulted in prompt intervention. If she had let the patient be, the patient could have died. The staff member went above and beyond by speaking up and taking action when she had a patient safety concern.

Level 2 – HRO Safety Champion Award. A patient presented to an outpatient clinic for monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for a COVID-19 infection; the treatment has been scheduled by the patient’s primary care provider. At that time, outpatient mAb therapy was the recommended care option for patients stable enough to receive treatment in this setting, but it is contraindicated in patients who are too unstable to receive mAb therapy in an outpatient setting, such as those with increased oxygen demands. R.L., a staff nurse, assessed the patient on arrival and found that his vital signs were stable, except for a slightly elevated respiratory rate. Upon questioning, the patient reported that he had increased his oxygen use at home from 2 to 4 L via a nasal cannula. R.L. assessed that the patient was too high-risk for outpatient mAb therapy and had the patient checked into the emergency department (ED) to receive a full diagnostic workup and evaluation by Dr. W., an ED provider. The patient required admission to the hospital for a higher level of care in an inpatient unit because of severe COVID-19 infection. Within 48 hours of admission, the patient’s condition further declined, requiring an upgrade to the medical intensive care unit with progressive interventions. Owing to the clinical assessment skills and prompt action of R.L., the patient was admitted to the hospital instead of receiving treatment in a suboptimal care setting and returning home. Had the patient gone home, his rapid decline could have had serious consequences.

Reason for criteria being met: On a cursory look, the patient may have passed as someone sufficiently stable to undergo outpatient treatment. However, the nurse stopped the line, paid close attention, and picked up on an abnormal vital sign and the projected consequences. The nurse brought the patient to a higher level of care in the ED so that he could get the attention he needed. If this patient was given mAb therapy in the outpatient setting, he would have been discharged and become sicker with the COVID-19 illness. As a result of this incident, R.L. is working with the outpatient clinic and ED staff to enahance triage and evaluation of patients referred for outpatient therapy for COVID-19 infections to prevent a similar event from recurring.

Level 3 – Culture of Safety Appreciation Award. While C.C. was reviewing the hazardous item competencies of the acute psychiatric inpatient staff, it was learned that staff were sniffing patients’ personal items to see if they were “safe” and free from alcohol. This is a potentially dangerous practice, and if fentanyl is present, it can be life-threatening. All patients admitted to acute inpatient psychiatry have all their clothing and personal items checked for hazardous items—pockets are emptied, soles of shoes are lifted, and so on. Staff wear personal protective equipment during this process to mitigate any powders or other harmful substances being inhaled or coming in contact with their skin or clothes. The gloves can be punctured if needles are found in the patient’s belongings. C.C. not only educated the staff on the dangers of sniffing for alcohol during hazardous-item checks, but also looked for further potential safety concerns. An additional identified risk was for needle sticks when such items were found in a patient’s belongings. C.C.’s recommendations included best practices to allow only unopened personal items and have available hospital-issued products as needed. C.C. remembered having a conversation with an employee from the psychiatric emergency room regarding the purchase of puncture-proof gloves to mitigate puncture sticks. C.C. recommended that the same gloves be used by staff on the acute inpatient psychiatry unit during searches for hazardous items.

Reason for criteria being met: The employee works in the hospital education department. It is within her scope of responsibilities to provide ongoing education to staff in order to address potential safety concerns.

DISCUSSION

This QI initiative was undertaken to demonstrate to staff that, in building an organizational culture of safety and advancing quality health care, it is important that staff be encouraged to speak up for safety and be acknowledged for doing so. As part of efforts to continuously build on a safety-first culture, transparency and celebration of successes were demonstrated. This QI initiative demonstrated that a diverse and wide range of employees were reached, from clinical to nonclinical staff, and frontline to supervisory staff, as all were included in the recognition process. While many award nominations were received through the submission of safety concerns to the high-reliability team and patient safety office, several came directly from staff who wanted to recognize their peers for their work, supporting a culture of safety. This showed that staff felt that taking the time to submit a write-up to recognize a peer was an important task. Achieving zero harm for patients and staff alike is a top priority for our institution and guides all decisions, which reinforces that everyone has a responsibility to ensure that safety is always the first consideration. A culture of safety is enhanced by staff recognition. This QI initiative also showed that staff felt valued when they were acknowledged, regardless of the level of recognition they received. The theme of feeling valued came from unsolicited feedback. For example, some direct comments from awardees are presented in the Box.

In addition to endorsing the importance of safe practices to staff, safety award programs can identify gaps in existing standard procedures that can be updated quickly and shared broadly across a health care organization. The authors observed that the existence of the award program gives staff permission to use their voice to speak up when they have questions or concerns related to safety and to proactively engage in safety practices; a cultural shift of this kind informs safety practices and procedures and contributes to a more inspiring workplace. Staff at our organization who have received any of the safety awards, and those who are aware of these awards, have embraced the program readily. At the time of submission of this manuscript, there was a relative paucity of published literature on the details, performance, and impact of such programs. This initiative aims to share a road map highlighting the various dimensions of staff recognition and how the program supports our health care system in fostering a strong, sustainable culture of safety and health care quality. A next step is to formally assess the impact of the awards program on our culture of safety and quality using a psychometrically sound measurement tool, as recommended by TJC,¹⁶ such as the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture.^17,18

CONCLUSION

A health care organization safety awards program is a strategy for building and sustaining a culture of safety. This QI initiative may be valuable to other organizations in the process of establishing a safety awards program of their own. Future research should focus on a formal evaluation of the impact of safety awards programs on patient safety outcomes.

Corresponding author: John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, FAAN, 20 Chapel Street, Unit A502, Brookline, MA 02446; JMurray325@aol.com

Disclosures: None reported.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Promoting a culture of safety is a critical component of improving health care quality. Recognizing staff who stop the line for safety can positively impact the growth of a culture of safety. The purpose of this initiative was to demonstrate to staff the importance of speaking up for safety and being acknowledged for doing so.

Methods: Following a review of the literature on safety awards programs and their role in promoting a culture of safety in health care covering the period 2017 to 2020, a formal process was developed and implemented to disseminate safety awards to employees.

Results: During the initial 18 months of the initiative, a total of 59 awards were presented. The awards were well received by the recipients and other staff members. Within this period, adjustments were made to enhance the scope and reach of the program.

Conclusion: Recognizing staff behaviors that support a culture of safety is important for improving health care quality and employee engagement. Future research should focus on a formal evaluation of the impact of safety awards programs on patient safety outcomes.

Keywords: patient safety, culture of safety, incident reporting, near miss.

A key aspect of improving health care quality is promoting and sustaining a culture of safety in the workplace. Improving the quality of health care services and systems involves making informed choices regarding the types of strategies to implement.¹ An essential aspect of supporting a safety culture is safety-event reporting. To approach the goal of zero harm, all safety events, whether they result in actual harm or are considered near misses, need to be reported. Near-miss events are errors that occur while care is being provided but are detected and corrected before harm reaches the patient.^1-3 Near-miss reporting plays a critical role in helping to identify and correct weaknesses in health care delivery systems and processes.⁴ However, evidence shows that there are a multitude of barriers to the reporting of near-miss events, such as fear of punitive actions, additional workload, unsupportive work environments, a culture with poor psychological safety, knowledge deficit, and lack of recognition of staff who do report near misses.^4-11

According to The Joint Commission (TJC), acknowledging health care team members who recognize and report unsafe conditions that provide insight for improving patient safety is a key method for promoting the reporting of near-miss events.⁶ As a result, some health care organizations and patient safety agencies have started to institute some form of recognition for their employees in the realm of safety.^8-10 The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority offers exceptional guidance for creating a safety awards program to promote a culture of safety.¹² Furthermore, TJC supports recognizing individuals and health care teams who identify and report near misses, or who have suggestions for initiatives to promote patient safety, with “good catch” awards. Individuals or teams working to promote and sustain a culture of safety should be recognized for their efforts. Acknowledging “good catches” to reward the identification, communication, and resolution of safety issues is an effective strategy for improving patient safety and health care quality.^6,8

This quality improvement (QI) initiative was undertaken to demonstrate to staff that, in building an organizational culture of safety, it is important that staff be encouraged to speak up for safety and be acknowledged for doing so. If health care organizations want staff to be motivated to report near misses and improve safety and health care quality, the culture needs to shift from focusing on blame to incentivizing individuals and teams to speak up when they have concerns.^8-10 Although deciding which safety actions are worthy of recognition can be challenging, recognizing all safe acts, regardless of how big or small they are perceived to be, is important. This QI initiative aimed to establish a tiered approach to recognize staff members for various categories of safety acts.

METHODS

A review of the literature from January 2017 to May 2020 for peer-reviewed publications regarding how other organizations implemented safety award programs to promote a culture of safety resulted in a dearth of evidence. This prompted us at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System to develop and implement a formal program to disseminate safety awards to employees.

Program Launch and Promotion

In 2020, our institution embarked on a journey to high reliability with the goal of approaching zero harm. As part of efforts to promote a culture of safety, the hospital’s High Reliability Organization (HRO) team worked to develop a safety awards recognition program. Prior to the launch, the hospital’s patient safety committee recognized staff members through the medical center safety event reporting system (the Joint Patient Safety Reporting system [JPSR]) or through direct communication with staff members on safety actions they were engaged in. JPSR is the Veterans Health Administration National Center for Patient Safety incident reporting system for reporting, tracking, and trending of patient incidents in a national database. The award consisted of a certificate presented by the patient safety committee chairpersons to the employee in front of their peers in their respective work area. Hospital leadership was not involved in the safety awards recognition program at that time. No nomination process existed prior to our QI launch.

Once the QI initiative was launched and marketed heavily at staff meetings, we started to receive nominations for actions that were truly exceptional, while many others were submitted for behaviors that were within the day-to-day scope of practice of the staff member. For those early nominations that did not meet criteria for an award, we thanked staff for their submissions with a gentle statement that their nomination did not meet the criteria for an award. After following this practice for a few weeks, we became concerned that if we did not acknowledge the staff who came forward to request recognition for their routine work that supported safety, we could risk losing their engagement in a culture of safety. As such, we decided to create 3 levels of awards to recognize behaviors that went above and beyond while also acknowledging staff for actions within their scope of practice. Additionally, hospital leadership wanted to ensure that all staff recognize that their safety efforts are valued by leadership and that that sense of value will hopefully contribute to a culture of safety over time.

Initially, the single award system was called the “Good Catch Award” to acknowledge staff who go above and beyond to speak up and take action when they have safety concerns. This particular recognition includes a certificate, an encased baseball card that has been personalized by including the staff member’s picture and safety event identified, a stress-release baseball, and a stick of Bazooka gum (similar to what used to come in baseball cards packs). The award is presented to employees in their work area by the HRO and patient safety teams and includes representatives from the executive leadership team (ELT). The safety event identified is described by an ELT member, and all items are presented to the employee. Participation by the leadership team communicates how much the work being done to promote a culture of safety and advance quality health care is appreciated. This action also encourages others in the organization to identify and report safety concerns.¹³

With the rollout of the QI initiative, the volume of nominations submitted quickly increased (eg, approximately 1 every 2 months before to 3 per month following implementation). Frequently, nominations were for actions believed to be within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities. Our institution’s leadership team quickly recognized that, as an organization, not diminishing the importance of the “Good Catch Award” was important. However, the leadership team also wanted to encourage nominations from employees that involved safety issues that were part of the employee’s scope of responsibilities. As a result, 2 additional and equally notable award tiers were established, with specific criteria created for each.¹⁴ The addition of the other awards was instrumental in getting the leadership team to feel confident that all staff were being recognized for their commitment to patient safety.

The original Good Catch Award was labelled as a Level 1 award. The Level 2 safety recognition award, named the HRO Safety Champion Award, is given to employees who stop the line for a safety concern within their scope of practice and also participate as part of a team to investigate and improve processes to avoid recurring safety concerns in the future. For the Level Two award, a certificate is presented to an employee by the hospital’s HRO lead, HRO physician champion, patient safety manager, immediate supervisor, and peers. With the Level 3 award, the Culture of Safety Appreciation Award, individuals are recognized for addressing safety concerns within their assigned scope of responsibilities. Recognition is bestowed by an email of appreciation sent to the employee, acknowledging their commitment to promoting a culture of safety and quality health care. The recipient’s direct supervisor and other hospital leaders are copied on the message.¹⁴ See Table 1 for a comparison of awards.

Our institution’s HRO and patient safety teams utilized many additional venues to disseminate information regarding awardees and their actions. These included our monthly HRO newsletter, monthly safety forums, and biweekly Team Connecticut Healthcare system-wide huddles.

Nomination Process

Awards nominations are submitted via the hospital intranet homepage, where there is an “HRO Safety Award Nomination” icon. Once a staff member clicks the icon, a template opens asking for information, such as the reason for the nomination submission, and then walks them through the template using the CAR (C-context, A-actions, and R-results)¹⁵ format for describing the situation, identifying actions taken, and specifying the outcome of the action. Emails with award nominations can also be sent to the HRO lead, HRO champion, or Patient Safety Committee co-chairs. Calls for nominations are made at several venues attended by employees as well as supervisors. These include monthly safety forums, biweekly Team Connecticut Healthcare system-wide huddles, supervisory staff meetings, department and unit-based staff meetings, and many other formal and informal settings. This QI initiative has allowed us to capture potential awardees through several avenues, including self-nominations. All nominations are reviewed by a safety awards committee. Each committee member ranks the nomination as a Level 1, 2, or 3 award. For nominations where conflicting scores are obtained, the committee discusses the nomination together to resolve discrepancies.

Needed Resources

Material resources required for this QI initiative include certificate paper, plastic baseball card sleeves, stress-release baseballs, and Bazooka gum. The largest resource investment was the time needed to support the initiative. This included the time spent scheduling the Level 1 and 2 award presentations with staff and leadership. Time was also required to put the individual award packages together, which included printing the paper certificates, obtaining awardee pictures, placing them with their safety stories in a plastic baseball card sleeve, and arranging for the hospital photographer to take pictures of the awardees with their peers and leaders.

RESULTS

Prior to this QI initiative launch, 14 awards were given out over the preceding 2-year period. During the initial 18 months of the initiative (December 2020 to June 2022), 59 awards were presented (Level 1, n = 26; Level 2, n = 22; and Level 3, n = 11). Looking further into the Level 1 awards presented, 25 awardees worked in clinical roles and 1 in a nonclinical position (Table 2). The awardees represented multidisciplinary areas, including medical/surgical (med/surg) inpatient units, anesthesia, operating room, pharmacy, mental health clinics, surgical intensive care, specialty care clinics, and nutrition and food services. With the Level 2 awards, 18 clinical staff and 4 nonclinical staff received awards from the areas of med/surg inpatient, outpatient surgical suites, the medical center director’s office, radiology, pharmacy, primary care, facilities management, environmental management, infection prevention, and emergency services. All Level 3 awardees were from clinical areas, including primary care, hospital education, sterile processing, pharmacies, operating rooms, and med/surg inpatient units.

With the inception of this QI initiative, our organization has begun to see trends reflecting increased reporting of both actual and close-call events in JPSR (Figure 1).

With the inclusion of information regarding awardees and their actions in monthly safety forums, attendance at these forums has increased from an average of 64 attendees per month in 2021 to an average of 131 attendees per month in 2022 (Figure 2).

Finally, our organization’s annual All-Employee Survey results have shown incremental increases in staff reporting feeling psychologically safe and not fearing reprisal (Figure 3). It is important to note that there may be other contributing factors to these incremental changes.

Stories From the 3 Award Categories

Level 1 – Good Catch Award. M.S. was assigned as a continuous safety monitor, or “sitter,” on one of the med/surg inpatient units. M.S. arrived at the bedside and asked for a report on the patient at a change in shift. The report stated that the patient was sleeping and had not moved in a while. M.S. set about to perform the functions of a sitter and did her usual tasks in cleaning and tidying the room for the patient for breakfast and taking care of all items in the room, in general. M.S. introduced herself to the patient, who she thought might wake up because of her speaking to him. She thought the patient was in an odd position, and knowing that a patient should be a little further up in the bed, she tried with touch to awaken him to adjust his position. M.S. found that the patient was rather chilly to the touch and immediately became concerned. She continued to attempt to rouse the patient. M.S. called for the nurse and began to adjust the patient’s position. M.S. insisted that the patient was cold and “something was wrong.” A set of vitals was taken and a rapid response team code was called. The patient was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit to receive a higher level of care. If not for the diligence and caring attitude of M.S., this patient may have had a very poor outcome.

Reason for criteria being met: The scope of practice of a sitter is to be present in a patient’s room to monitor for falls and overall safety. This employee noticed that the patient was not responsive to verbal or tactile stimuli. Her immediate reporting of her concern to the nurse resulted in prompt intervention. If she had let the patient be, the patient could have died. The staff member went above and beyond by speaking up and taking action when she had a patient safety concern.

Level 2 – HRO Safety Champion Award. A patient presented to an outpatient clinic for monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for a COVID-19 infection; the treatment has been scheduled by the patient’s primary care provider. At that time, outpatient mAb therapy was the recommended care option for patients stable enough to receive treatment in this setting, but it is contraindicated in patients who are too unstable to receive mAb therapy in an outpatient setting, such as those with increased oxygen demands. R.L., a staff nurse, assessed the patient on arrival and found that his vital signs were stable, except for a slightly elevated respiratory rate. Upon questioning, the patient reported that he had increased his oxygen use at home from 2 to 4 L via a nasal cannula. R.L. assessed that the patient was too high-risk for outpatient mAb therapy and had the patient checked into the emergency department (ED) to receive a full diagnostic workup and evaluation by Dr. W., an ED provider. The patient required admission to the hospital for a higher level of care in an inpatient unit because of severe COVID-19 infection. Within 48 hours of admission, the patient’s condition further declined, requiring an upgrade to the medical intensive care unit with progressive interventions. Owing to the clinical assessment skills and prompt action of R.L., the patient was admitted to the hospital instead of receiving treatment in a suboptimal care setting and returning home. Had the patient gone home, his rapid decline could have had serious consequences.

Reason for criteria being met: On a cursory look, the patient may have passed as someone sufficiently stable to undergo outpatient treatment. However, the nurse stopped the line, paid close attention, and picked up on an abnormal vital sign and the projected consequences. The nurse brought the patient to a higher level of care in the ED so that he could get the attention he needed. If this patient was given mAb therapy in the outpatient setting, he would have been discharged and become sicker with the COVID-19 illness. As a result of this incident, R.L. is working with the outpatient clinic and ED staff to enahance triage and evaluation of patients referred for outpatient therapy for COVID-19 infections to prevent a similar event from recurring.

Level 3 – Culture of Safety Appreciation Award. While C.C. was reviewing the hazardous item competencies of the acute psychiatric inpatient staff, it was learned that staff were sniffing patients’ personal items to see if they were “safe” and free from alcohol. This is a potentially dangerous practice, and if fentanyl is present, it can be life-threatening. All patients admitted to acute inpatient psychiatry have all their clothing and personal items checked for hazardous items—pockets are emptied, soles of shoes are lifted, and so on. Staff wear personal protective equipment during this process to mitigate any powders or other harmful substances being inhaled or coming in contact with their skin or clothes. The gloves can be punctured if needles are found in the patient’s belongings. C.C. not only educated the staff on the dangers of sniffing for alcohol during hazardous-item checks, but also looked for further potential safety concerns. An additional identified risk was for needle sticks when such items were found in a patient’s belongings. C.C.’s recommendations included best practices to allow only unopened personal items and have available hospital-issued products as needed. C.C. remembered having a conversation with an employee from the psychiatric emergency room regarding the purchase of puncture-proof gloves to mitigate puncture sticks. C.C. recommended that the same gloves be used by staff on the acute inpatient psychiatry unit during searches for hazardous items.

Reason for criteria being met: The employee works in the hospital education department. It is within her scope of responsibilities to provide ongoing education to staff in order to address potential safety concerns.

DISCUSSION

This QI initiative was undertaken to demonstrate to staff that, in building an organizational culture of safety and advancing quality health care, it is important that staff be encouraged to speak up for safety and be acknowledged for doing so. As part of efforts to continuously build on a safety-first culture, transparency and celebration of successes were demonstrated. This QI initiative demonstrated that a diverse and wide range of employees were reached, from clinical to nonclinical staff, and frontline to supervisory staff, as all were included in the recognition process. While many award nominations were received through the submission of safety concerns to the high-reliability team and patient safety office, several came directly from staff who wanted to recognize their peers for their work, supporting a culture of safety. This showed that staff felt that taking the time to submit a write-up to recognize a peer was an important task. Achieving zero harm for patients and staff alike is a top priority for our institution and guides all decisions, which reinforces that everyone has a responsibility to ensure that safety is always the first consideration. A culture of safety is enhanced by staff recognition. This QI initiative also showed that staff felt valued when they were acknowledged, regardless of the level of recognition they received. The theme of feeling valued came from unsolicited feedback. For example, some direct comments from awardees are presented in the Box.

In addition to endorsing the importance of safe practices to staff, safety award programs can identify gaps in existing standard procedures that can be updated quickly and shared broadly across a health care organization. The authors observed that the existence of the award program gives staff permission to use their voice to speak up when they have questions or concerns related to safety and to proactively engage in safety practices; a cultural shift of this kind informs safety practices and procedures and contributes to a more inspiring workplace. Staff at our organization who have received any of the safety awards, and those who are aware of these awards, have embraced the program readily. At the time of submission of this manuscript, there was a relative paucity of published literature on the details, performance, and impact of such programs. This initiative aims to share a road map highlighting the various dimensions of staff recognition and how the program supports our health care system in fostering a strong, sustainable culture of safety and health care quality. A next step is to formally assess the impact of the awards program on our culture of safety and quality using a psychometrically sound measurement tool, as recommended by TJC,¹⁶ such as the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture.^17,18

CONCLUSION

A health care organization safety awards program is a strategy for building and sustaining a culture of safety. This QI initiative may be valuable to other organizations in the process of establishing a safety awards program of their own. Future research should focus on a formal evaluation of the impact of safety awards programs on patient safety outcomes.

Corresponding author: John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, FAAN, 20 Chapel Street, Unit A502, Brookline, MA 02446; JMurray325@aol.com

Disclosures: None reported.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Promoting a culture of safety is a critical component of improving health care quality. Recognizing staff who stop the line for safety can positively impact the growth of a culture of safety. The purpose of this initiative was to demonstrate to staff the importance of speaking up for safety and being acknowledged for doing so.

Methods: Following a review of the literature on safety awards programs and their role in promoting a culture of safety in health care covering the period 2017 to 2020, a formal process was developed and implemented to disseminate safety awards to employees.

Results: During the initial 18 months of the initiative, a total of 59 awards were presented. The awards were well received by the recipients and other staff members. Within this period, adjustments were made to enhance the scope and reach of the program.

Conclusion: Recognizing staff behaviors that support a culture of safety is important for improving health care quality and employee engagement. Future research should focus on a formal evaluation of the impact of safety awards programs on patient safety outcomes.

Keywords: patient safety, culture of safety, incident reporting, near miss.

A key aspect of improving health care quality is promoting and sustaining a culture of safety in the workplace. Improving the quality of health care services and systems involves making informed choices regarding the types of strategies to implement.¹ An essential aspect of supporting a safety culture is safety-event reporting. To approach the goal of zero harm, all safety events, whether they result in actual harm or are considered near misses, need to be reported. Near-miss events are errors that occur while care is being provided but are detected and corrected before harm reaches the patient.^1-3 Near-miss reporting plays a critical role in helping to identify and correct weaknesses in health care delivery systems and processes.⁴ However, evidence shows that there are a multitude of barriers to the reporting of near-miss events, such as fear of punitive actions, additional workload, unsupportive work environments, a culture with poor psychological safety, knowledge deficit, and lack of recognition of staff who do report near misses.^4-11

According to The Joint Commission (TJC), acknowledging health care team members who recognize and report unsafe conditions that provide insight for improving patient safety is a key method for promoting the reporting of near-miss events.⁶ As a result, some health care organizations and patient safety agencies have started to institute some form of recognition for their employees in the realm of safety.^8-10 The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority offers exceptional guidance for creating a safety awards program to promote a culture of safety.¹² Furthermore, TJC supports recognizing individuals and health care teams who identify and report near misses, or who have suggestions for initiatives to promote patient safety, with “good catch” awards. Individuals or teams working to promote and sustain a culture of safety should be recognized for their efforts. Acknowledging “good catches” to reward the identification, communication, and resolution of safety issues is an effective strategy for improving patient safety and health care quality.^6,8

This quality improvement (QI) initiative was undertaken to demonstrate to staff that, in building an organizational culture of safety, it is important that staff be encouraged to speak up for safety and be acknowledged for doing so. If health care organizations want staff to be motivated to report near misses and improve safety and health care quality, the culture needs to shift from focusing on blame to incentivizing individuals and teams to speak up when they have concerns.^8-10 Although deciding which safety actions are worthy of recognition can be challenging, recognizing all safe acts, regardless of how big or small they are perceived to be, is important. This QI initiative aimed to establish a tiered approach to recognize staff members for various categories of safety acts.

METHODS

A review of the literature from January 2017 to May 2020 for peer-reviewed publications regarding how other organizations implemented safety award programs to promote a culture of safety resulted in a dearth of evidence. This prompted us at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System to develop and implement a formal program to disseminate safety awards to employees.

Program Launch and Promotion

In 2020, our institution embarked on a journey to high reliability with the goal of approaching zero harm. As part of efforts to promote a culture of safety, the hospital’s High Reliability Organization (HRO) team worked to develop a safety awards recognition program. Prior to the launch, the hospital’s patient safety committee recognized staff members through the medical center safety event reporting system (the Joint Patient Safety Reporting system [JPSR]) or through direct communication with staff members on safety actions they were engaged in. JPSR is the Veterans Health Administration National Center for Patient Safety incident reporting system for reporting, tracking, and trending of patient incidents in a national database. The award consisted of a certificate presented by the patient safety committee chairpersons to the employee in front of their peers in their respective work area. Hospital leadership was not involved in the safety awards recognition program at that time. No nomination process existed prior to our QI launch.

Once the QI initiative was launched and marketed heavily at staff meetings, we started to receive nominations for actions that were truly exceptional, while many others were submitted for behaviors that were within the day-to-day scope of practice of the staff member. For those early nominations that did not meet criteria for an award, we thanked staff for their submissions with a gentle statement that their nomination did not meet the criteria for an award. After following this practice for a few weeks, we became concerned that if we did not acknowledge the staff who came forward to request recognition for their routine work that supported safety, we could risk losing their engagement in a culture of safety. As such, we decided to create 3 levels of awards to recognize behaviors that went above and beyond while also acknowledging staff for actions within their scope of practice. Additionally, hospital leadership wanted to ensure that all staff recognize that their safety efforts are valued by leadership and that that sense of value will hopefully contribute to a culture of safety over time.

Initially, the single award system was called the “Good Catch Award” to acknowledge staff who go above and beyond to speak up and take action when they have safety concerns. This particular recognition includes a certificate, an encased baseball card that has been personalized by including the staff member’s picture and safety event identified, a stress-release baseball, and a stick of Bazooka gum (similar to what used to come in baseball cards packs). The award is presented to employees in their work area by the HRO and patient safety teams and includes representatives from the executive leadership team (ELT). The safety event identified is described by an ELT member, and all items are presented to the employee. Participation by the leadership team communicates how much the work being done to promote a culture of safety and advance quality health care is appreciated. This action also encourages others in the organization to identify and report safety concerns.¹³

With the rollout of the QI initiative, the volume of nominations submitted quickly increased (eg, approximately 1 every 2 months before to 3 per month following implementation). Frequently, nominations were for actions believed to be within the scope of the employee’s responsibilities. Our institution’s leadership team quickly recognized that, as an organization, not diminishing the importance of the “Good Catch Award” was important. However, the leadership team also wanted to encourage nominations from employees that involved safety issues that were part of the employee’s scope of responsibilities. As a result, 2 additional and equally notable award tiers were established, with specific criteria created for each.¹⁴ The addition of the other awards was instrumental in getting the leadership team to feel confident that all staff were being recognized for their commitment to patient safety.

The original Good Catch Award was labelled as a Level 1 award. The Level 2 safety recognition award, named the HRO Safety Champion Award, is given to employees who stop the line for a safety concern within their scope of practice and also participate as part of a team to investigate and improve processes to avoid recurring safety concerns in the future. For the Level Two award, a certificate is presented to an employee by the hospital’s HRO lead, HRO physician champion, patient safety manager, immediate supervisor, and peers. With the Level 3 award, the Culture of Safety Appreciation Award, individuals are recognized for addressing safety concerns within their assigned scope of responsibilities. Recognition is bestowed by an email of appreciation sent to the employee, acknowledging their commitment to promoting a culture of safety and quality health care. The recipient’s direct supervisor and other hospital leaders are copied on the message.¹⁴ See Table 1 for a comparison of awards.

Our institution’s HRO and patient safety teams utilized many additional venues to disseminate information regarding awardees and their actions. These included our monthly HRO newsletter, monthly safety forums, and biweekly Team Connecticut Healthcare system-wide huddles.

Nomination Process

Awards nominations are submitted via the hospital intranet homepage, where there is an “HRO Safety Award Nomination” icon. Once a staff member clicks the icon, a template opens asking for information, such as the reason for the nomination submission, and then walks them through the template using the CAR (C-context, A-actions, and R-results)¹⁵ format for describing the situation, identifying actions taken, and specifying the outcome of the action. Emails with award nominations can also be sent to the HRO lead, HRO champion, or Patient Safety Committee co-chairs. Calls for nominations are made at several venues attended by employees as well as supervisors. These include monthly safety forums, biweekly Team Connecticut Healthcare system-wide huddles, supervisory staff meetings, department and unit-based staff meetings, and many other formal and informal settings. This QI initiative has allowed us to capture potential awardees through several avenues, including self-nominations. All nominations are reviewed by a safety awards committee. Each committee member ranks the nomination as a Level 1, 2, or 3 award. For nominations where conflicting scores are obtained, the committee discusses the nomination together to resolve discrepancies.

Needed Resources

Material resources required for this QI initiative include certificate paper, plastic baseball card sleeves, stress-release baseballs, and Bazooka gum. The largest resource investment was the time needed to support the initiative. This included the time spent scheduling the Level 1 and 2 award presentations with staff and leadership. Time was also required to put the individual award packages together, which included printing the paper certificates, obtaining awardee pictures, placing them with their safety stories in a plastic baseball card sleeve, and arranging for the hospital photographer to take pictures of the awardees with their peers and leaders.

RESULTS

Prior to this QI initiative launch, 14 awards were given out over the preceding 2-year period. During the initial 18 months of the initiative (December 2020 to June 2022), 59 awards were presented (Level 1, n = 26; Level 2, n = 22; and Level 3, n = 11). Looking further into the Level 1 awards presented, 25 awardees worked in clinical roles and 1 in a nonclinical position (Table 2). The awardees represented multidisciplinary areas, including medical/surgical (med/surg) inpatient units, anesthesia, operating room, pharmacy, mental health clinics, surgical intensive care, specialty care clinics, and nutrition and food services. With the Level 2 awards, 18 clinical staff and 4 nonclinical staff received awards from the areas of med/surg inpatient, outpatient surgical suites, the medical center director’s office, radiology, pharmacy, primary care, facilities management, environmental management, infection prevention, and emergency services. All Level 3 awardees were from clinical areas, including primary care, hospital education, sterile processing, pharmacies, operating rooms, and med/surg inpatient units.

With the inception of this QI initiative, our organization has begun to see trends reflecting increased reporting of both actual and close-call events in JPSR (Figure 1).

With the inclusion of information regarding awardees and their actions in monthly safety forums, attendance at these forums has increased from an average of 64 attendees per month in 2021 to an average of 131 attendees per month in 2022 (Figure 2).

Finally, our organization’s annual All-Employee Survey results have shown incremental increases in staff reporting feeling psychologically safe and not fearing reprisal (Figure 3). It is important to note that there may be other contributing factors to these incremental changes.

Stories From the 3 Award Categories

Level 1 – Good Catch Award. M.S. was assigned as a continuous safety monitor, or “sitter,” on one of the med/surg inpatient units. M.S. arrived at the bedside and asked for a report on the patient at a change in shift. The report stated that the patient was sleeping and had not moved in a while. M.S. set about to perform the functions of a sitter and did her usual tasks in cleaning and tidying the room for the patient for breakfast and taking care of all items in the room, in general. M.S. introduced herself to the patient, who she thought might wake up because of her speaking to him. She thought the patient was in an odd position, and knowing that a patient should be a little further up in the bed, she tried with touch to awaken him to adjust his position. M.S. found that the patient was rather chilly to the touch and immediately became concerned. She continued to attempt to rouse the patient. M.S. called for the nurse and began to adjust the patient’s position. M.S. insisted that the patient was cold and “something was wrong.” A set of vitals was taken and a rapid response team code was called. The patient was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit to receive a higher level of care. If not for the diligence and caring attitude of M.S., this patient may have had a very poor outcome.

Reason for criteria being met: The scope of practice of a sitter is to be present in a patient’s room to monitor for falls and overall safety. This employee noticed that the patient was not responsive to verbal or tactile stimuli. Her immediate reporting of her concern to the nurse resulted in prompt intervention. If she had let the patient be, the patient could have died. The staff member went above and beyond by speaking up and taking action when she had a patient safety concern.

Level 2 – HRO Safety Champion Award. A patient presented to an outpatient clinic for monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for a COVID-19 infection; the treatment has been scheduled by the patient’s primary care provider. At that time, outpatient mAb therapy was the recommended care option for patients stable enough to receive treatment in this setting, but it is contraindicated in patients who are too unstable to receive mAb therapy in an outpatient setting, such as those with increased oxygen demands. R.L., a staff nurse, assessed the patient on arrival and found that his vital signs were stable, except for a slightly elevated respiratory rate. Upon questioning, the patient reported that he had increased his oxygen use at home from 2 to 4 L via a nasal cannula. R.L. assessed that the patient was too high-risk for outpatient mAb therapy and had the patient checked into the emergency department (ED) to receive a full diagnostic workup and evaluation by Dr. W., an ED provider. The patient required admission to the hospital for a higher level of care in an inpatient unit because of severe COVID-19 infection. Within 48 hours of admission, the patient’s condition further declined, requiring an upgrade to the medical intensive care unit with progressive interventions. Owing to the clinical assessment skills and prompt action of R.L., the patient was admitted to the hospital instead of receiving treatment in a suboptimal care setting and returning home. Had the patient gone home, his rapid decline could have had serious consequences.

Reason for criteria being met: On a cursory look, the patient may have passed as someone sufficiently stable to undergo outpatient treatment. However, the nurse stopped the line, paid close attention, and picked up on an abnormal vital sign and the projected consequences. The nurse brought the patient to a higher level of care in the ED so that he could get the attention he needed. If this patient was given mAb therapy in the outpatient setting, he would have been discharged and become sicker with the COVID-19 illness. As a result of this incident, R.L. is working with the outpatient clinic and ED staff to enahance triage and evaluation of patients referred for outpatient therapy for COVID-19 infections to prevent a similar event from recurring.

Level 3 – Culture of Safety Appreciation Award. While C.C. was reviewing the hazardous item competencies of the acute psychiatric inpatient staff, it was learned that staff were sniffing patients’ personal items to see if they were “safe” and free from alcohol. This is a potentially dangerous practice, and if fentanyl is present, it can be life-threatening. All patients admitted to acute inpatient psychiatry have all their clothing and personal items checked for hazardous items—pockets are emptied, soles of shoes are lifted, and so on. Staff wear personal protective equipment during this process to mitigate any powders or other harmful substances being inhaled or coming in contact with their skin or clothes. The gloves can be punctured if needles are found in the patient’s belongings. C.C. not only educated the staff on the dangers of sniffing for alcohol during hazardous-item checks, but also looked for further potential safety concerns. An additional identified risk was for needle sticks when such items were found in a patient’s belongings. C.C.’s recommendations included best practices to allow only unopened personal items and have available hospital-issued products as needed. C.C. remembered having a conversation with an employee from the psychiatric emergency room regarding the purchase of puncture-proof gloves to mitigate puncture sticks. C.C. recommended that the same gloves be used by staff on the acute inpatient psychiatry unit during searches for hazardous items.

Reason for criteria being met: The employee works in the hospital education department. It is within her scope of responsibilities to provide ongoing education to staff in order to address potential safety concerns.

DISCUSSION

This QI initiative was undertaken to demonstrate to staff that, in building an organizational culture of safety and advancing quality health care, it is important that staff be encouraged to speak up for safety and be acknowledged for doing so. As part of efforts to continuously build on a safety-first culture, transparency and celebration of successes were demonstrated. This QI initiative demonstrated that a diverse and wide range of employees were reached, from clinical to nonclinical staff, and frontline to supervisory staff, as all were included in the recognition process. While many award nominations were received through the submission of safety concerns to the high-reliability team and patient safety office, several came directly from staff who wanted to recognize their peers for their work, supporting a culture of safety. This showed that staff felt that taking the time to submit a write-up to recognize a peer was an important task. Achieving zero harm for patients and staff alike is a top priority for our institution and guides all decisions, which reinforces that everyone has a responsibility to ensure that safety is always the first consideration. A culture of safety is enhanced by staff recognition. This QI initiative also showed that staff felt valued when they were acknowledged, regardless of the level of recognition they received. The theme of feeling valued came from unsolicited feedback. For example, some direct comments from awardees are presented in the Box.

In addition to endorsing the importance of safe practices to staff, safety award programs can identify gaps in existing standard procedures that can be updated quickly and shared broadly across a health care organization. The authors observed that the existence of the award program gives staff permission to use their voice to speak up when they have questions or concerns related to safety and to proactively engage in safety practices; a cultural shift of this kind informs safety practices and procedures and contributes to a more inspiring workplace. Staff at our organization who have received any of the safety awards, and those who are aware of these awards, have embraced the program readily. At the time of submission of this manuscript, there was a relative paucity of published literature on the details, performance, and impact of such programs. This initiative aims to share a road map highlighting the various dimensions of staff recognition and how the program supports our health care system in fostering a strong, sustainable culture of safety and health care quality. A next step is to formally assess the impact of the awards program on our culture of safety and quality using a psychometrically sound measurement tool, as recommended by TJC,¹⁶ such as the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture.^17,18

CONCLUSION

A health care organization safety awards program is a strategy for building and sustaining a culture of safety. This QI initiative may be valuable to other organizations in the process of establishing a safety awards program of their own. Future research should focus on a formal evaluation of the impact of safety awards programs on patient safety outcomes.

Corresponding author: John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, FAAN, 20 Chapel Street, Unit A502, Brookline, MA 02446; JMurray325@aol.com

Disclosures: None reported.