Our story so far… (See last week’s post.)
This week: What we learned, and some insightful comments on
the last post.
Last week’s suggestions for process improvement (PI) were
well-received by nursing and medical staff. Our quality improvement nurse lead reported that nursing
staff were keen to expedite voiding trials once they appreciated the
implications for patient flow. I
think this initiative was accepted because it was only a minor departure from
current practice (i.e. night staff removing catheters before leaving their
shift, filling bladders before removing catheters). Both of these ideas have previously been successful, either
on our ward, or in other local settings.
If we had started with the idea of shifting the decision for catheter
removal from physicians to nurses, it would have been a much bigger change in
practice.
We have data!
Order Time
|
Foley Removal Time
|
Time of first void
|
Am rounds
|
0720
|
0800
|
Am rounds
|
0845
|
1300
|
Order to d/c in am
|
0600
|
0730
|
Am rounds
|
0825
|
1030
|
Am rounds
|
0705
|
0915
|
Am rounds
|
0740
|
1245
|
Am rounds
|
0800
|
Unable to void
|
This is not a “control” group. We had already discussed making process changes while making
these measurements. Measurement wonks
will have spotted something missing from this table: Dates! We’re interested to see change over
time, so we’ll need to start recording the date of each voiding trial.
The absence of this important information illustrates a
peril of the informal, 5-minute PI.
We didn’t spend time refining what information we wanted to
collect. On the other hand, it was
a small trial of measurement using minimal resources and we learned something
for next time. Also, we’ll need to
record whether or not the man had his bladder filled before catheter removal.
Thanks to Susan Shaw and Katherine Stevenson for their
insights.
Ever looking for ways to improve the client’s experience,
Susan wondered if we had asked our patients for any suggestions on how to
improve our processes. No, we
haven’t.
Ironically, on the same day that I read Susan’s comment, I
was being reminded – in another setting - of the value of soliciting client
feedback. We welcomed our first
patients at the new Urology Centre of Health at St. Paul’s Hospital, and were
finding that, even with extensive planning, there were still rough spots to be
smoothed. The nurse and I asked
one of the first clients about her impressions and suggestions. She had striking insights about things
we hadn’t considered, such as the distance between our examining rooms and the
washroom, given that many of our patients often have urgency to void.
So, Susan, thanks for the reminder that we may be missing
out on a valuable source of PI ideas.
On further thought, why is it that I had to be reminded
about the importance of asking clients about their experience? Perhaps we haven’t explicitly valued
client feedback. Our hospitals
conduct client satisfaction surveys, but they produce aggregate data and we
wouldn’t be able to dissect the results to determine whether our PI changes had
helped or hindered. Also, the
feedback comes many months after those patients had been in the hospital. On the other hand, managers, physicians
and staff are made aware regularly of the pressure to maintain patient
flow. We have daily feedback about
bed occupancy, surgical cancellations and patients waiting in the ER.
Katherine pointed out that, while our 5-minute huddles may
have been informal, they weren’t completely unstructured. She’s right that I was trying to apply
the principles of teamwork, measurement and learning cycles (PDSA) to the
process without clubbing anyone over the head with these PI tools. I agree that there should be at least
one person who has formal training and experience in quality improvement
methodology involved in the process.
Otherwise, there’s a high risk of failure.
Perhaps it’s a little like playing jazz. Jazz musicians must have deep technical
knowledge so they can improvise (and fail!) with the confidence that they can
find their way back when things get dissonant.