Methods
CUSP Initiative
The CUSP initiative focuses specifically on improving processes for determining catheter appropriateness and promoting proper insertion techniques in addition to changes in culture to facilitate teamwork and communication amongst frontline staff and improve collaboration between the ED and inpatient units. To participate in the project, a multidisciplinary team that included ED leadership, infection prevention department, and nursing clinical quality and research specialists was established.
The team designed an intervention that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out consisting of a pause before inserting the indwelling urinary catheter to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the CUSP methodology into ED practice.
Rollout Using 4Es
January through March 2015 was the implementation period during which education and validation of practices were conducted. The 4Es model created by the Johns Hopkins University Quality and Safety Research Group was used to roll out the changes in practice to the ED staff; the 4Es are Engagement, Education, Execution, and Evaluation [7]. To engage staff, the scope of CAUTIs, including the implications to both patients and to the health care system as a whole, were presented from a local (hospital) and a national perspective. Education was achieved by outlining the new process in ED staff education sessions, as well as through handouts, emails, and during shift change huddles. The content included a checklist (Figure 1) staff would use to follow proper aseptic technique as well as reminders of the intent of the project.
The process was executed through the use of a safety time-out completed by the 2 personnel (nurses) involved in the procedure prior to insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter. The time-out consisted of reviewing the insertion criteria to determine appropriateness for placement and the proper steps for insertion per hospital policy. The catheter was then inserted by one person while the second was solely responsible to assure compliance with proper aseptic technique. The procedure was stopped if aseptic technique was compromised. The indications for insertion and/or maintaining the urinary catheter are based on the HICPAC guidelines [3] and include the following:
- Acute urinary retention/obstruction
- Urologic, urethral or extensive abdominal surgical procedure
- Critically ill patient with unstable vital signs and requires close urine output monitoring (ICU patient receiving aggressive diuretic therapy, vasopressor/inotropic therapy, paralytic therapy, aggressive fluid management or titrated vasoactive medications)
- Stage 3 or 4 sacral or perineal pressure ulcer in a patient with incontinence
- End of life comfort
- Prevention of further trauma due to a difficult insertion
- Prolonged immobility due to unstable spinal fracture or pelvic fracture and inability to use bedpan.
During the implementation period, a process measure was used to evaluate the rollout. The compliance rate of returned insertion checklists versus the total number of insertions was calculated weekly and tracked over time. Although compliance was low at first, through several Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles conducted on a weekly basis, compliance steadily increased during the implementation period. Staff were also kept abreast of the compliance rates and progress of the project with weekly email updates and periodically in daily huddles during shift change.
Rollout Using 4Es
In parallel to the CUSP framework, the ED leadership team discretely used 6 of “The Speed of Trust” behaviors most relevant to the project to help drive the new process including get better, practice accountability, keep commitments, clarify expectations, deliver results, and create transparency. Get better was used to motivate staff to action in order to deliver the highest quality of care to our patients. Practice accountability was exercised by having the staff sign the checklist used in the new process. Deliver results was supported by the timely feedback of data to frontline staff to show whether the goal was being met. Clarifying expectations was demonstrated through feedback from weekly PDSA rapid cycles and constant reinforcement that all insertions must involve 2 personnel. Keeping commitments was established with an agreement amongst the staff and leadership to keep patients safe and deliver high quality care. Creating transparency was exemplified by explaining the initiative clearly to each patient and their family and allowing for any questions.
Outcomes Measurement
During the post-intervention period, progress was evaluated using 2 outcome measures: the insertion-related CAUTI rate and the catheter utilization ratio. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) 2014 and 2015 criteria was used to identify any CAUTI [8] and for the purposes of this project, the insertion-related CAUTI rate was defined as the number of CAUTIs occurring ≤ 7 days after insertion, with the date of insertion being day 1, per 1000 catheters inserted in the ED. The utilization ratio was calculated from the number of catheters inserted per patient ED visits. The insertion-related CAUTI rates for the pre- and post-intervention periods were compared after excluding 2014 yeast CAUTIs to adjust for changes in the 2015 National Healthcare Safety Network CAUTI criteria, which removed yeast as an organism for CAUTI. The utilization ratio was also calculated and compared between pre- and post-intervention periods. All statistical analysis was done using the NHSN statistics calculator.