Improving tracheostomy care: collaborative national consensus and prioritisation of quality improvements in the United Kingdom

Main Article Content

Brendan McGrath James Lynch Barry Coe Sarah Wallace Barbara Bonvento Dani Eusuf Mike Firn

Abstract

Background


Tracheostomies are artificial airway devices used predominantly to manage airway obstruction and to facilitate weaning from prolonged mechanical ventilation. Whilst a lifesaving procedure, tracheostomy can also lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Associated vocalization and swallowing problems lead to anxiety for patients, families and healthcare staff. The Global Tracheostomy (Quality Improvement) Collaborative can improve the safety and quality of care in participating institutions, leading to a large-scale UK-wide evaluation. However, whilst individual strategies have proved effective in single centres, it is unclear which tracheostomy quality improvement program elements should be prioritized in the UK’s National Health Service’s (NHS) diverse hospitals.


Aims


Through a unique consensus and prioritisation exercise using front line staff and leaders from 20 participating UK hospitals, we aimed to develop a national strategy for tracheostomy quality improvements.


Methods


Following national research ethics committee approval, representative multidisciplinary staff groups were interviewed and completed bespoke questionnaires regarding their experiences of tracheostomy care and associated quality improvements. Qualitative evaluation techniques were applied to develop key themes, further refined by group consensus and prioritisation exercises, creating a ranked list of important quality improvement interventions that should be implemented.


Results


Thematic analysis yielded 22 statements regarding tracheostomy care. Highly ranked priority interventions included multidisciplinary staff education, standards and competencies, multidisciplinary ward rounds, equipment standardisation and structured care bundles.


Conclusion


Prioritising distinct quality improvement interventions will allow providers to focus on improving the quality and safety of tracheostomy care using resources and strategies that are important to frontline healthcare staff.

Article Details

How to Cite
MCGRATH, Brendan et al. Improving tracheostomy care: collaborative national consensus and prioritisation of quality improvements in the United Kingdom. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 1, jan. 2018. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/1670>. Date accessed: 21 may 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v6i1.1670.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Wilkinson KA, Martin IC, Freeth H, et al. NCEPOD: On the right Trach? 2014. Available from: www.ncepod.org.uk/2014tc.htm (accessed 20 Oct 2017).
2. McGrath BA, Thomas AN. Patient safety incidents associated with tracheostomies occurring in hospital wards: a review of reports to the UK National Patient Safety Agency. Postgrad Med J 2010;86:522–5.
3. McGrath BA, Thomas AN. Patient safety incidents associated with airway devices in critical care: a review of reports to the UK National Patient Safety Agency. Anaesthesia 2009;64:358–65.
4. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C, et al. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2011;106:617–31.
5. McGrath BA, Calder N, Laha S, et al. Reduction in harm from tracheostomy-related patient safety incidents following introduction of the National Tracheostomy Safety Project: our experience from two hundred and eighty-seven incidents. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38(6):541-5.
6. McGrath BA, Lynch J, Bonvento B, et al. Evaluating the quality improvement impact of the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative in four diverse NHS hospitals. BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2017;6(1):bmjqir.u220636.w7996.
7. Cameron TS, McKinstry A, Burt SK, et al. Outcomes of patients with spinal cord injury before and after introduction of an interdisciplinary tracheostomy team. Crit Care Resusc. 2009;11(1):14–19.
8. Cetto R, Arora A, Hettige R, et al. Improving tracheostomy care: a prospective study of the multidisciplinary approach. Clin Otolaryngol. 2011;36(5):482–488.
9. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2):77-101.
10. Diceman, J. Dotmocracy handbook. 2010. Available from: http:// files.uniteddiversity.com/Decision_Making_and_Democracy/dot mocracy_handbook.pdf (Accessed 21 Oct 2017).
11. Restall GJ, Carnochan TN, Roger KS, et al. Collaborative priority setting for human immunodeficiency virus rehabilitation research: A case report. Can J Occupat Ther. 2016;83:7–13.
12. McGrath BA, Bates L, Atkinson D, Moore JA. Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of tracheostomy and laryngectomy airway emergencies. Anaesthesia 2012;67(9):1025-41.
13. McGrath BA, Wallace S. The UK National Tracheostomy Safety Project and the role of speech and language therapists. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;22(3):181-7.
14. Dixon-Woods M, Leslie M, Tarrant C, Bion J. Explaining Matching Michigan: an ethnographic study of a patient safety program. Implement Sci. 2013;8:70.
15. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629.
16. Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):167-205.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.