Standard Solutions for Complex Settings: The Idiosyncrasies of a Weaning Protocol Use in Practice

  • Sahiti Myneni
  • Trevor Cohen
  • Khalid F. Almoosa
  • Vimla L. Patel
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

Patient safety efforts in health domain are oftentimes compared with other safety-critical and high-reliability domains including aviation, banking, and nuclear plants. In these industries, standardization of practices is seen as a viable strategy to mitigate error and improve safety [1]. Along similar lines, extensive efforts were made in medical domain to engineer high-safety processes by standardizing care delivery procedures and reducing practice variation. While standardization of procedures is based on the best scientific evidence available for a particular clinical problem at hand, it is also supposed to allow for practice of individual medicine to address patient-specific issues. Studies examining the impact of standardization reported improvements in quality of care – better clinical outcomes and reductions in infection transmissions. At the same time, standardization has also been shown to reduce healthcare expenditures [2].

Keywords

Pneumonia 

References

  1. 1.
    Bion J, Heffner J. Challenges in the care of the acutely ill. Lancet. 2004;363(9413):970–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rozich JD, Howard RJ, Justeson JM, Macken PD, Lindsay MF, Resar RK. Standardization as a mechanism to improve safety in health care. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2004;30(1):5–14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boord JB, Sharifi M, Greevy RA, Griffin MR, Lee VK, Webb TA, et al. Computer-based insulin infusion protocol improves glycemia control over manual protocol. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007;14(3):278–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gross PA, Bates DW. A pragmatic approach to implementing best practices for clinical decision support systems in computerized provider order entry systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007;14(1):25–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holcomb BW, Wheeler AP, Ely EW. New ways to reduce unnecessary variation and improve outcomes in the intensive care unit. Current opinion in critical care. 2001;7(4):304–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meade MO, Ely EW. Protocols to improve the care of critically ill pediatric and adult patients. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;288(20):2601–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morris AH. Treatment algorithms and protocolized care. Current opinion in critical care. 2003;9(3):236–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winters BD, Gurses AP, Lehmann H, Sexton JB, Rampersad CJ, Pronovost PJ. Clinical review: checklists-translating evidence into practice. Crit Care. 2009;13(6):210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wood KA, Angus DC. Reducing variation and standardizing practice in the intensive care unit. Current opinion in critical care. 2001;7(4):281–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, Thomason JWW, Schweickert WD, Pun BT, et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2008;371(9607):126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasibeder WR. Does standardization of critical care work? Current opinion in critical care. 2010;16(5):493–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zed PJ, Abu-Laban RB, Chan W, Harrison DW. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a prospective study. CJEM. 2007;9(6):421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burns SM. Making weaning easier. Pathways and protocols that work. Critical care nursing clinics of North America. 1999;11(4):465.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacIntyre NR. Evidence-based guidelines for weaning and discontinuing ventilatory support: a collective task force facilitated by the American College of Chest Physicians; the American Association for Respiratory Care; and the American College of Critical Care Medicine. CHEST Journal. 2001;120(6_suppl):375S–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ely EW, Meade MO, Haponik EF, Kollef MH, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al. Mechanical ventilator weaning protocols driven by nonphysician health-care professionals: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. CHEST Journal. 2001;120(6_suppl):454S–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myneni S, McGinnis D, Almoosa K, Cohen T, Patel B, Patel V. Effective use of clinical decision support in critical care: using risk assessment framework for evaluation of a computerized weaning protocol. Annals of Information Systems: Special issue on Healthcare Informatics. 2013. (Accepted in press)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osheroff J, Pifer E, Teich J, Sittig D, Jenders R. Improving outcomes with clinical decision support. Chicago: HIMSS; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, Steen EB, Wright A, Detmer DE. A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. Journal of the American medical informatics association. 2007;14(2):141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brochard L, Rauss A, Benito S, Conti G, Mancebo J, Rekik N, et al. Comparison of three methods of gradual withdrawal from ventilatory support during weaning from mechanical ventilation. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 1994;150(4):896–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burns KEA, Meade MO, Lessard MR, Keenan SP, Lellouche F. Wean earlier and automatically with New technology (the WEAN study): a protocol of a multicentre, pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2009;10(1):81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Esen F, Denkel T, Telci L, Kesecioglu J, Tütüncü A, Akpir K, et al. Comparison of pressure support ventilation (PSV) and intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) during weaning in patients with acute respiratory failure. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 1992;317:371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Esteban A, Frutos F, Tobin MJ, Alía I, Solsona JF, Valverdu V, et al. A comparison of four methods of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995;332(6):345–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lellouche F, Mancebo J, Roesler J, Jolliet P, Schortgen F, Cabello M, et al. Computer-driven ventilation reduces duration of weaning: a multicenter randomized controlled study. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:S69.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rose L, Presneill JJ, Johnston L, Cade JF. A randomised, controlled trial of conventional versus automated weaning from mechanical ventilation using SmartCare™/PS. Intensive care medicine. 2008;34(10):1788–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ely EW, Bennett PA, Bowton DL, Murphy SM, Florance AM, Haponik EF. Large scale implementation of a respiratory therapist–driven protocol for ventilator weaning. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 1999;159(2):439–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLean SE, Jensen LA, Schroeder DG, Gibney NRT, Skjodt NM. Improving adherence to a mechanical ventilation weaning protocol for critically ill adults: outcomes after an implementation program. American Journal of Critical Care. 2006;15(3):299–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Randolph AG, Clemmer TP, East TD, Kinder AT, Orme JF, Wallace CJ, et al. Evaluation of compliance with a computerized protocol: weaning from mechanical ventilator support using pressure support. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine. 1998;57(3):201–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vitacca M, Clini E, Porta R, Ambrosino N. Preliminary results on nursing workload in a dedicated weaning center. Intensive care medicine. 2000;26(6):796–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amalberti R. The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Science. 2001;37(2):109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hollnagel E. The changing nature of risk. Ergonomics Australia Journal. 2008;22(1–2):33–46.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PAC, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 1999;282(15):1458–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Friedman CP. “Smallball” evaluation: a prescription for studying community-based information interventions. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2005;93(4 Suppl):S43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications—clinical decision support systems literature review. International journal of medical informatics. 2001;64(1):15–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sinuff T, Cook D, Giacomini M, Heyland D, Dodek P. Facilitating clinician adherence to guidelines in the intensive care unit: a multicenter, qualitative study. Critical care medicine. 2007;35(9):2083–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weiss CH, Amaral LA. Moving the science of quality improvement in critical care medicine forward. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2011;184(3):383–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH, editors. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings Washington, DC: American Medical Informatics Association; 2007.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patel VL, Cohen T. New perspectives on error in critical care. Current opinion in critical care. 2008;14(4):456–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2004;11(2):104–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, Campbell E, Guappone K. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration. International journal of medical informatics. 2009;78:S69–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Poon EG, Guappone K, Campbell E, Dykstra RH. The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007;14(4):415–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2006;13(5):547–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007;14(5):542–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Levin SA. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems. 1998;1(5):431–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    DeRosier J, Stalhandske E, Bagian JP, Nudell T. Using health care failure mode and effect analysis: the VA national center for patient safety’s prospective risk analysis system. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2002;28(5):248–67.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Spath PL. Using failure mode and effects analysis to improve patient safety. AORN journal. 2003;78(1):15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Markowitz AJ. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ. 2001;322(7285):517–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Stanhope N. Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. BMJ. 1998;316(7138):1154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hollnagel E, Pruchnicki S, Woltjer R, Etcher S, editors. Analysis of Comair flight 5191 with the functional resonance accident model. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium of the Australian Aviation Psychology Association; Sydney, Australia; 2008.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sundström GA, Hollnagel E. The importance of functional interdependencies in financial services systems. Resilience engineering in practice. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2010.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Herrera IA, Woltjer R. Comparing a multi-linear (STEP) and systemic (FRAM) method for accident analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2010;95(12):1269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N. Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company; 2006.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Oxford/New York: Elsevier Science; 1998.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, Gandhi T, Kittler A, Volk L, et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2003;10(6):523–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hollnagel E. Barriers and accident prevention. Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Limited; 2004.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Myneni S, McGinnis D, Almoosa K, Cohen T, Patel B, Patel V. 553: Socio-technical barriers to effective use of a weaning protocol in a medical intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine. 2011;39(12):153.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schvaneveldt RW. Pathfinder associative networks: studies in knowledge organization. Norwood: Westport, CT, US: Ablex Pub. Corp; 1990.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tossell CC, Smith BA, Schvaneveldt RW, editors. The Influence of Rating Method on Knowledge Structures. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. San Antonio, TX: SAGE Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C. Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making process of professional sea-fishing skippers. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2008;50(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sahiti Myneni
    • 1
  • Trevor Cohen
    • 2
  • Khalid F. Almoosa
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vimla L. Patel
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Biomedical InformaticsUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Transplant Surgery ICUMemorial Hermann Hospital, Texas Medical CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Center for Cognitive Studies in Medicine and Public Health, New York Academy of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical InformaticsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biomedical InformaticsArizona State UniversityScottsdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations