Protocols, Policies, and Procedures: Tools for Quality Improvement in Critical Care

  • Andrew T. Levinson
  • Mitchell M. LevyEmail author


Protocols, checklists, guidelines, and bundles are essential tools designed to improve the quality of care. Developing and maintaining effective policies, procedures, and protocols are now essential for ensuring smoothly operating and efficient critical care services. Quality improvement initiatives should incorporate four essential phases: development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance. Essential to the quality improvement is the process of measuring performance. Developing and revising ICU policies and procedures should be based on the ongoing measurement of performance. Funders, health-care systems, and government entities are increasingly mandating public reporting of quality measures.


Checklists Bundles Guidelines Policies Procedures Protocols Quality improvement 


  1. 1.
    Richardson WC, et al. The Institute of Medicine Report on medical errors: misunderstanding can do harm. Quality of health care in America Committee. MedGenMed. 2000;2(3):E42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis DA, et al. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunkhorst FM, et al. Practice and perception – a nationwide survey of therapy habits in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2719–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wensing M, van der Weijden T, Grol R. Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: which interventions are effective? Br J Gen Pract. 1998;48(427):991–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferrer R, et al. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA. 2008;299(19):2294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pronovost P, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy MM, et al. Surviving Sepsis campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levy MM, et al. Mortality changes associated with mandated public reporting for Sepsis. The results of the New York state initiative. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(11):1406–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrer R, et al. Improved empirical antibiotic treatment of sepsis after an educational intervention: the ABISS-Edusepsis study. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damiani E, et al. Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dykes PC, et al. Prospective evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve outcomes in intensive care: the promoting respect and ongoing safety through patient engagement communication and technology study. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(8):e806–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Houck PM, et al. Timing of antibiotic administration and outcomes for Medicare patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(6):637–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanwar M, et al. Misdiagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia and inappropriate utilization of antibiotics: side effects of the 4-h antibiotic administration rule. Chest. 2007;131(6):1865–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Investigators N-SS, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krishnan JA, et al. A prospective, controlled trial of a protocol-based strategy to discontinue mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169(6):673–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson EE, et al. Implementation of an Academic-to-Community Hospital ICU quality improvement program: qualitative analysis of multilevel facilitators and barriers. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16(7):877–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook DJ, et al. Toward understanding evidence uptake: semirecumbency for pneumonia prevention. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(7):1472–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donchin Y, et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. 1995. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):143–7; discussion 147–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pham HH, et al. Delivery of preventive services to older adults by primary care physicians. JAMA. 2005;294(4):473–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curtis JR, et al. Intensive care unit quality improvement: a “how-to” guide for the interdisciplinary team. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(1):211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGlynn EA, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bodi M, et al. Antibiotic prescription for community-acquired pneumonia in the intensive care unit: impact of adherence to Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on survival. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(12):1709–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peterson ED, et al. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1912–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Starks MA, et al. The association of duration of participation in get with the guidelines-resuscitation with quality of care for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Am Heart J. 2018;204:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(4):260–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fan E, et al. How to use an article about quality improvement. JAMA. 2010;304(20):2279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bilimoria KY, et al. Evaluation of surveillance bias and the validity of the venous thromboembolism quality measure. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1482–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panzer RJ, et al. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA. 2013;310(18):1971–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joynt KE, et al. Quality of care and patient outcomes in critical access rural hospitals. JAMA. 2011;306(1):45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trivedi AN, et al. Quality and equity of care in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(24):2298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooke CR, Iwashyna TJ. Sepsis mandates: improving inpatient care while advancing quality improvement. JAMA. 2014;312(14):1397–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rhee C, et al. Compliance with the national SEP-1 quality measure and association with sepsis outcomes: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(10):1585–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pham HH, Cohen M, Conway PH. The Pioneer accountable care organization model: improving quality and lowering costs. JAMA. 2014;312(16):1635–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Song Z, Sequist TD, Barnett ML. Patient referrals: a linchpin for increasing the value of care. JAMA. 2014;312(6):597–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Etzioni DA, et al. Association of hospital participation in a surgical outcomes monitoring program with inpatient complications and mortality. JAMA. 2015;313(5):505–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep MedicineWarren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Intensive Care Unit, Miriam, HospitalProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Division Chief Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep MedicineWarren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.Medical Intensive Care Unit, Rhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations