5 questions to answer separately! All relate to Implementing the ABCDE Bundle to decrease hospital length of stay in a long-term acute care hospital. You may reference the three primary articles attac

Stuck with a difficult assignment? No time to get your paper done? Feeling confused? If you’re looking for reliable and timely help for assignments, you’ve come to the right place. We promise 100% original, plagiarism-free papers custom-written for you. Yes, we write every assignment from scratch and it’s solely custom-made for you.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

5 questions to answer separately!

All relate to Implementing the ABCDE Bundle to decrease hospital length of stay in a long-term acute care hospital. You may reference the three primary articles attached – must read them to use them

question 1

Describe the primary quantitative literature upon which your DPI Project is based and explain how the scientific evidence supports your recommendation for a practice change.  ( attached are three articles to reference) these are three primary articles

question 2

Describe how the outcome for your DPI Project is linked to quality improvement and how it will improve the quality of health care for the patient population.

question 3

How are you incorporating technology at your site to enhance your project? What technology will you use to gather data and analyze the data? (discuss  the electronic health record – excel and SPSS for data interpretation )

question 4

considering  what a DPI Project is and how you are incorporating the Christian worldview into the project. As a Christian university, GCU integrates faith, learning, work, and service in an effort to honor God in all that it does and encourages others to join in these endeavors. In what ways does your DPI Project reflect this?

question 5

Discuss any existing or new barriers (stakeholder, financial/cost, supply chain issues, etc.) you anticipate for obtaining IRB approval at the project site or the GCU IRB. Discuss any existing or new barriers you anticipate for implementing the intervention at the project site. Include your plans to mitigate these barriers.- discuss the lack of resources for the mobilization of physical therapy staff, the deficient number of chairs in each room; the plan would be to have the therapy team teach staff about safe patient handling (look that up and reference it ) and utilize all chairs available – discuss the issue with staff documentation – discuss the importance of completion – bundle champions will inspect bundle sheets daily to ensure it’s completed in its entirety. .

All questions list separately, all must have at least 2 references and 250words each question

5 questions to answer separately! All relate to Implementing the ABCDE Bundle to decrease hospital length of stay in a long-term acute care hospital. You may reference the three primary articles attac
Downloaded from<004B005700570053001D00120012004D00520058005500510044004F00560011004F005A005A001100460052005000120046 00460050004D00520058005500510044004F> by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on02/20/2022 Downloadedfrom<004B005700570053001D00120012004D00520058005500510044004F00560011004F005A005A001100460052005000120046 00460050004D00520058005500510044004F> by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on02/20/2022Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Feature Articles Critical Care Medicine www.ccmjournal.org 885 Objectives: To measure the impact of staged implementation of full versus partial ABCDE bundle on mechanical ventilation dura- tion, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and cost. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Two medical ICUs within Montefiore Healthcare Center (Bronx, NY). Patients: One thousand eight hundred fifty-five mechanically ventilated patients admitted to ICUs between July 2011 and July 2014. Interventions: At baseline, spontaneous (B)reathing trials (B) were ongoing in both ICUs; in period 1, (A)wakening and (D)elir- ium (AD) were implemented in both full and partial bundle ICUs; in period 2, (E)arly mobilization and structured bundle (C)oordina- tion (EC) were implemented in the full bundle (B-AD-EC) but not the partial bundle ICU (B-AD). Measurements and Main Results: In the full bundle ICU, 95% patient days were spent in bed before EC (period 1). After EC was implemented (period 2), 65% of patients stood, 54% walked at least once during their ICU stay, and ICU-acquired pressure ulcers and physical restraint use decreased (period 1 vs 2: 39% vs 23% of patients; 30% vs 26% patient days, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). After adjustment for patient-level covariates, im- plementation of the full (B-AD-EC) versus partial (B-AD) bundle was associated with reduced mechanical ventilation duration (–22.3%; 95% CI, –22.5% to –22.0%; p < 0.001), ICU length of *See also p. 997.1Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care, and Environmental Medi-cine, Department of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA. 3Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Depart- ment of Medicine, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 4Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. 5Division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care, Department of Med-icine, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 6Department of Nursing, Montefiore Healthcare Center, Bronx, NY.7Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. 8Occupational Therapy Assistant Program, Health Sciences Depart-ment, LaGuardia Community College, Long Island City, NY. 9Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. 10Network Performance Group, Montefiore Medical Center, Yonkers, NY.11Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein Col- lege of Medicine, Bronx, NY. Drs. Hsieh and Gong conceptualized and designed the study. Drs. Hsieh, Otusanya, Gershengorn, Hope, Dayton, Prince, Mills, Fein, Colman, and Gong acquired, analyzed, and interpreted the data. Drs. Hsieh, Otusanya, Gershengorn, Hope, and Gong drafted the article for important intellec- tual content. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL cita- tions appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (http://journals.l ww.com/ ccmjournal). Supported, in part, by 8KL2TR0000088-05 from the Albert Einstein Col- lege of Medicine – Montefiore Medical Center Institute for Clinical an d Translational Research (to Dr. Hsieh), R03AG050927 (to Dr. Hope), Na- tional Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute HL084060 and HL086667 (to Dr. Gong); 1 UL1 TR001073-01, 1 TL1 TR001072-01, 1 KL2 TR001071-01 (Einstein-Montefiore Clinical and Translational Science Awards). Drs. Hsieh, Hope, and Gong received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Hsieh’s institution received funding from Einstein-Montefiore Institute for Clinical and Translational Research DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003765 Staged Implementation of Awakening and Breathing, Coordination, Delirium Monitoring and Management, and Early Mobilization Bundle Improves Patient Outcomes and Reduces Hospital Costs* S. Jean Hsieh, MD, MS 1; Olufisayo Otusanya, MD 2; Hayley B. Gershengorn, MD 3; Aluko A. Hope, MD, MScE 4; Christopher Dayton, MD 5; Daniela Levi, MD 4; Melba Garcia, BSN 6; David Prince, MD 7; Michele Mills, MA, OTR 8; Dan Fein, MD 9; Silvie Colman, PhD 10; Michelle Ng Gong, MD, MS 4,11 and La Jolla Pharmaceutical. Dr. Gong’s institution received funding from NIH grants and Philips Healthcare. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest. This work was performed at Montefiore Healthcare Center. Address requests for reprints to: Michelle Ng Gong, MD, MS, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10467. E-mail: mgong@mon- tefiore.org Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Hsieh et al 886 www.ccmjournal.org July 2019 • Volume 47 • Number 7 stay (–10.3%; 95% CI, –15.6% to –4.7%; p = 0.028), and hos- pital length of stay (–7.8%; 95% CI, –8.7% to –6.9%; p = 0.006). Total ICU and hospital cost were also reduced by 24.2% (95% CI, –41.4% to –2.0%; p = 0.03) and 30.2% (95% CI, –46.1% to –9.5%; p = 0.007), respectively. Conclusions: In a clinical practice setting, the addition of (E)arly mobilization and structured (C)oordination of ABCDE bundle components to a spontaneous (B)reathing, (A)wakening, and (D) elirium management background led to substantial reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and cost. (Crit Care Med 2019; 47:885–893) Key Words: critical care; delirium; early mobilization; implementation; mechanical ventilation I CU-acquired delirium and weakness can lead to dev- astating cognitive and physical impairments and psy- chiatric symptoms in ICU survivors, also known as “post-intensive care syndrome” (1–6). The (A)wakening and (B)reathing, (C)oordination, (D)elirium monitoring and management, and (E)arly mobilization (ABCDE) bundle (7, 8) is an interdisciplinary patient-centered evidence-based strategy endorsed by critical care societies and national quality improvement agencies to prevent and reduce ICU delirium and weakness, and operationalize the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Pain, Agitation, and Delirium clin- ical practice guidelines (9–13). Individual components of the ABCDE bundle are asso- ciated with substantial benefits in research settings (14–20). Although studies in clinical practice settings suggest that im- plementation of the full ABCDE bundle is associated with clinical benefits, its uptake has been limited and implemen- tation often-incomplete (21–28). Sequential implementa- tion of bundle components may improve overall execution by allowing providers to: 1) maximize efficacy of imple- mentation by focusing on individual components, 2) assess process improvement by performing stepwise evaluation of components, and 3) make practice adjustments before mov- ing to the next component. In addition, studies suggest that the efficacy of early mobilization can be maximized if pro- grams to reduce unnecessary sedation and delirium are al- ready in place (25, 29). Accordingly, we sought to determine the impact of add- ing EC to B-AD in the context of staged implementation of the ABCDE bundle in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients. We hypothesized that implementation of early mobilization on a foundation of targeted sedation practices and routine de- lirium monitoring would improve clinical outcomes and re- duce hospital cost. Preliminary results have been presented in abstract form (30, 31). MATERIALS AND METHODS See Supplemental Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/E506) for a more detailed descrip- tion of study procedures. Study Design and Setting This prospective study took place in two academic medical ICUs at Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY). ICUs had the same size (14 beds) and staffing (two patients per nurse, 24 hr onsite intensivist coverage), except the full bundle ICU was staffed by medical residents and the partial bundle ICU by physician assistants. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved a waiver of informed consent (IRB number 2014–3466). Cohort Our primary cohort consisted of all MV adults (≥ 18 yr) admit- ted to the ICUs for greater than or equal to 24 hours between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014 (Fig. 1). This cohort was used for analyses of clinical outcomes; alternative cohorts were used for process of care and cost outcomes (Fig. S1 and text in Sup- plemental Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http:// links.lww.com/CCM/E506). Implementation Stages Interdisciplinary teams of critical care nursing, physician, phar – macy, respiratory therapy, and rehabilitation leadership and champions developed and implemented bundle components. (A)wakening and (D)elirium Monitoring/Management (AD) (Both ICUs). At baseline, both ICUs used MV order sets that included daily sedation vacations and spontaneous (B) reathing trials (B) (Fig. 1); however, no guidance was given on performance or coordination of these bundles. Beginning in January 2012, the (A)wakening from sedation and (D)elirium monitoring/management (AD) bundles were implemented in both ICUs; this included physician-directed targeted sedation using the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (32, 33), twice daily delirium assessments using the Confusion Assess- ment Method-ICU by nurses (32, 34), and suggestions for nonpharmacologic delirium reduction methods. To account for time to adopt these changes, AD bundles were considered fully implemented by July 1, 2012. (E)arly Mobilization and (C)oordination of Components (EC): (Full Bundle ICU Only). (E)arly mobilization (E) con- sisted of evaluation by physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) at ICU admission, and daily rehabilitation by PT and/or OT according to a staged protocol in which patients ad- vanced from passive range of motion to independent ambula- tion with respiratory therapy and nursing assistance as needed (17, 35) (Fig. S3, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links. lww.com/CCM/E506). As part of this bundle, daily structured interdisciplinary rounds were established for ICU nurses, res- piratory therapists, and rehabilitation staff to (C)oordinate bundle components (C), diagnostic tests and procedures. On July 1, 2013, EC were implemented in the full bundle ICU only because of resource and staffing limitations. Data Collection Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records using healthcare surveillance software (Clinical Looking Glass; Emerging Health Information Technology, Yonkers, Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Feature Articles Critical Care Medicine www.ccmjournal.org 8 87 NY [36]). To determine if practices changed after ICU-wide implementation of bundle components, we also examined process of care data (Fig. 1; and Fig. S1 and text in Supple- mental Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http:// links.lww.com/CCM/E506). Outcomes Clinical Outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was the hospital length of stay (LOS) after the index ICU admission (i.e., ICU LOS + post-ICU LOS). Secondary outcomes included ICU LOS, duration of MV, hospital mortality, and discharge location. Cost Outcomes. Total hospital and ICU cost and average daily ICU cost (i.e., total cost divided by ICU LOS) were de- termined using cost-to-charge ratios at Montefiore Medical Center. Because cost-to-charge ratios differ by calendar year, the cohort in the cost analyses was limited to patients with hospitalizations that ended between January 1, 2012, and De- cember 31, 2013. Costs were calculated as the sum of daily direct variable costs from cost centers related to inpatient, nonoperative care (e.g., respiratory support, room and board, laboratory, medications) as previously described (37). Clinical Quality Outcomes. Clinical quality metrics that may be affected by implementation of the ABCDE bundle (e.g., ICU restraint use, prevalence of ICU-acquired pressure ulcers) were obtained from aggregate hospital-reported data for Cen- ters for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality indicators in both full and partial bundle ICUs. Data were only available for periods 1 and 2. Statistical Analysis Patient characteristics and unadjusted clinical outcomes were compared across ICUs and time periods using standard de- scriptive statistics. Nonparametric tests were used for skewed continuous measures. To evaluate the impact of EC on clinical and cost out- comes, we compared trends in these outcomes in the full versus partial bundle ICUs before and after EC implemen- tation using a multivariable difference-in-differences (DiD) approach (38, 39). This methodology uses a multivariable regression model that includes an interaction term for “time period” (e.g., period 1 vs 2) and “ICU” (full vs par – tial bundle) that measures the magnitude of the effect of EC Figure 1. Timeline of staged implementation of ABCDE in partial (B-AD only) versus full (B-AD-EC) bundle ICUs and data measurement periods. A, Periods of component implementation in the full and partial bundle ICUs. At baseline, spontaneous (B)reathing trials were ongoing in both full and partial bundle ICUs; on July 1, 2012, (A)wakening and (D)elirium monitoring/managemen t were implemented in both ICUs; on July 1, 2013, (E)arly mo- bilization and structured bundle (C)oordination were implemented in only the full bundle ICU. B, Periods in which process of care, clinical outcomes, and cost data were collected relative to bundle implementation. aProcess of care measurements (sedative use, delirium prevalence, maximum level of mobility) were compared across time in the full bundle ICU (B-AD-EC) only. bICU quality indicators, clinical outcomes, and cost were compared across t ime in both the full (B-AD-EC) and partial (B-AD) bundle ICUs. cCost periods were truncated because cost data are calculated based on a cost-to-charge ratio which varies between calendar years. The following periods were compared for the cost analysis: 1) baseline v ersus period 1 (i vs ii) and 2) period 1 versus pe – riod 2 (iii vs iv). A = awakening from sedation, B = spontaneous breat hing trial, C = structured coordination of bundle components, D = deliri um monitor – ing and management, E = early mobilization. Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Hsieh et al 888 www.ccmjournal.org July 2019 • Volume 47 • Number 7 (Fig. 1). In contrast to standard before-after studies, DiD controls for temporal trends in patient characteristics (e.g., increasing severity of illness) that might impact outcomes. DiD analyses are based on four assumptions to ensure va- lidity of the model, the most important of which is the parallel trend assumption (i.e., prior to interventions, tem- poral changes in outcomes for both ICUs are similar) (38). To test this assumption, separate regression models were constructed for each outcome in the baseline period (for B vs B-AD analysis) and period 1 (for B-AD vs B-AD-EC analysis); models included interaction terms for ICU admis- sion date and ICU. We also performed sensitivity analyses to determine if including patients with hospital LOS greater than 90 would alter our estimates. Although AD was imple- mented in both units, we used DiD (baseline vs period 1) to evaluate for differential impact of AD implementation on clinical outcomes between ICUs. All models were adjusted for patient-level characteristics that differed between ICUs (univariable p ≤ 0.2). Because Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV scores were missing in 10% of patients, we used dummy variable adjustment (40). All tests were two-tailed and p value of less than 0.05 de- fined statistical significance. Analyses were performed with STATA/MP 13 (Statacorp, College Station, TX). TABLE 1. Patient Characteristics in Partial (B-AD) Versus Full Bundle (B-AD-EC) ICUs Across Implementation Periods Patient Characteristic Baseline Period 1 Period 2 B Ongoing in Both ICUs B-AD in Both ICUs B-AD in Partial Bundle ICU; B-AD-EC in Full Bundle ICU Partial Bundle ICU, n = 267 Full Bundle ICU, n = 356 Partial Bundle ICU, n = 271 Full Bundle ICU, n = 314 Partial Bundle ICU, n = 281 Full Bundle ICU, n = 366 Age a, mean ( sd) 64 (5 74) 64 (5 75)66 (5 77) 64 (5 75)67 (5 78) c 61 (5 73) c Male, % 49464846 4551 Race, % c cc c White 221833213317 Black 3735273330 35 Multiracial 303230 342837 Other 111510111011 Hispanic ethnicity, % 33 c 42 c 373929 c 42 c Resided at home, % 79 c 70c 82 c 74c 8076 Admit from Ed, % a 66 6779 c 68 c 78c 69 c Charlson Comorbidity Index, median (IQR) 0 ( 1) 0 ( 2) 0 ( 2)0 ( 2)0 ( 1) c 0 ( 2) c Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evalu- ation IV, median (IQR) b,d 59 (4 76) 59 (4 77) 61 (4 77)62 (4 77)66 (5 86) 72 (5 90) Primary admitting diagnosis, % sepsis 5248 5449 5549 Respiratory 181917221517 Cardiovascular 444345 Gastrointestinal 355877 Endocrine/renal 341344 Other 211918161518 A = awakening from sedation, B = spontaneous breathing trial, C = coordination of bundle components, D = delir ium monitoring and management, E = early mobilization, IQR = interquartile range. a Partial bundle ICU between three periods, p ≤ 0.04.b Full bundle ICU between three periods, p < 0.001.c Partial vs full bundle ICU within period, p < 0.01.d Test for trend across three periods within partial and full bundle ICU, p ≤ 0.001. Multiple comparisons are being made in this table. Interpretive example: 1) patients were younger in full bundle ICU vs partial bundle ICU and 2) severity of illness increased over time in both partial and full bundle ICUs. Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Feature Articles Critical Care Medicine www.ccmjournal.org 889 RESULTS Patient Characteristics Between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, 1,855 MV patients were admitted to the full (1,036, 56%) and partial bundle (819, 44%) ICUs. The full bundle ICU had younger patients and more minorities (Table 1). Patients in the full bundle ICU also had more comorbidities, higher severity of illness, and fewer lived at home prior to hospitalization. Severity of illness (APACHE IV) increased across periods in both ICUs (p ≤ 0.001). Process of Care Evaluation (Full Bundle ICU Only) Sedative Use and Delirium Prevalence (Fig. S2, Supple- mental Digital Content 1, http:// links.lww.com/CCM/E506). In the rull bundle ICU, the pro- portion of patients receiving continuous sedation decreased across all three periods (p < 0.001 for midazolam and fen- tanyl; p = 0.06 for propofol) (Fig. S3A , Supplemental Digital Con- tent 1, http://links.lww.com/ CCM/E506). The proportion of patients with ICU delirium and/ or coma also decreased across all three periods (p ≤ 0.02) and similar to sedative use, the larg- est decrease occurred after AD was implemented (Fig. S3B , Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/ E506). ICU Mobility. After EC was implemented in the full bundle ICU (period 1 vs 2), the pro- portion of patients evaluated by the rehabilitation team (i.e., either PT and/or OT) increased from 19% to 90% and the pro- portion of patient days spent passively lying or sitting in bed decreased from 95% to 37%. Patients received rehabilitation therapy within 1 day of ICU ad- mission (median ICU day 1; in- terquartile range [IQR], 0–1) for a median of 60% of all ICU days (IQR, 50–80%); 77% of patients dangled at the bed’s edge, 65% stood, and 54% walked at least once during their ICU stay. No serious complications occurred during the 1,345 rehabilitation treatments. The main reasons why patients did not receive reha- bilitation therapy were lack of staff and clinical instability (61% and 29% of patient days with no rehabilitation, respectively). Outcomes Clinical Quality Outcomes. The proportion of patients with ICU-acquired pressure ulcers decreased (39% to 23%; p < 0.001) and the proportion of ICU patient days in restraints Figure 2. Clinical quality outcomes in full and partial bundle ICUs (periods 1 vs 2). Quality metrics from ag- gregate hospital-reported data Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service s quality indicators were compared between periods 1 versus 2 in both full and partial bundle ICUs. A, In the full bundle ICU (B-AD vs B-AD-EC), pressure ulcer incidence and physical restraint use decreased (p < 0.001 for both). B, In the partial bundle ICU (B-AD vs B-AD), pressure ulcer incidence and physical restraint use in creased ( p = 0.04; p = 0.001, respec- tively). A = awakening from sedation, B = spontaneous breathing trial, C = structured coordination of bundle components, D = delirium monitoring and management, E = early mobilizati on. Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Hsieh et al 890 www.ccmjournal.org July 2019 • Volume 47 • Number 7 decreased (30% to 26%; < 0.001) after implementation of EC in the full bundle ICU (period 1 vs 2; Fig. 2A). In contrast, the prevalence of ICU-acquired pressure ulcers increased (18% to 23% of patients; p = 0.04) and proportion of ICU days in restraints increased (50% to 54%; p = 0.001) in the partial bundle ICU during the same periods of time (Fig. 2B). Clinical Outcomes. Duration of MV and ICU LOS signifi- cantly changed in the full bundle ICU but not in the partial bundle ICU across three periods (Table 2). The duration of MV was sig- nificantly shorter in period 2 in the full versus partial bundle ICU, and ICU LOS was significantly shorter across all three periods in the full versus partial bundle ICU (p < 0.001). Hospital LOS and hospital mortality did not differ across all periods in both ICUs. In our DiD analyses, implementation of AD in both full bundle and partial bundle ICUs was associated with no signifi- cant changes in clinical outcomes, except for increased hospital LOS in the full versus partial bundle ICU (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.6– 7.2%; p = 0.011) (Table 3). Implementation of EC in the full bundle ICU after AD was associated with a 22.3% decrease in duration of MV (95% CI, –22.5% to –22.0%; p < 0.001), a 10.3% decrease in ICU LOS (95% CI, –15.6% to –4.7%; p = 0.028), and a 7.8% decrease in hospital LOS (95% CI, –8.7% to –6.9%; p = 0.006) compared with the partial bundle ICU (Table 3). The parallel trend assumption was met for all outcomes except for hospital LOS in period 1, where hospital LOS increased more in the full versus partial bundle ICU (0.17% change per calendar day; 95% CI, 0.10–0.24%; p = 0.022) (Table S2, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/E506). Sensitivity analyses including patients with hospital LOS greater than or equal to 90 days (n = 28, who had been excluded from our pri- mary cohort) revealed similar results (Table S3, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/E506). Cost Outcomes. In DiD analyses, implementation of AD in both full and partial bundle ICUs was associated with no sig- nificant changes in cost between the two units (Table 3). Im- plementation of EC in only the full bundle ICU was associated with a 24.2% reduction in total ICU cost (95% CI, –41.4% to –2.0%; p = 0.034; Table 3) and a 30.2% reduction in total hos- pital cost (95% CI, –46.1% to –9.5%; p = 0.007) in the full versus partial bundle ICU; there was no reduction in average daily ICU cost (4.4%; 95% CI, –4.5% to 14.1%; p = 0.342). The parallel trend assumption was met for all cost outcomes (Table S2, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww. com/CCM/E506). TABLE 2. Clinical Outcomes in Partial (B-AD) Versus Full Bundle (B-AD-EC) ICUs Across Implementation Periods Clinical Outcome Baseline Period 1 Period 2 B Ongoing in Both ICUs B-AD in Both ICUs B-AD in Partial Bundle ICU; B-AD-EC in Full Bundle ICU Partial Bundle ICU, n = 267 Full Bundle ICU, n = 356 Partial Bundle ICU, n = 271 Full Bundle ICU, n = 314 Partial Bundle ICU, n = 281 Full Bundle ICU, n = 366 Duration of mechanical ventilation (d), median (IQR) a 5 (3–11) 4 (3–9)5 (3–10) 5 (3–10)6 (3–11) b 4 (2–7) b ICU LOS (d), median (IQR) a 6.9 (3.4–12.7) b 5.0 (3.0–10.3) b 7.6 (4.7–13.0) b 6.2 (3.9–11.7) b 6.9 (3.8–13.3) b 5.0 (3.0–9.3) b Hospital LOS (d), median (IQR) c 13.2 (6.6–22.9) 12.2 (7.0–21.5)13.4 (8.9–21.9) 13.9 (8.0–24.4)14.0 (7.7–24.2)13.3 (7.1–23.3) Hospital mortality, % 222530 262830 Discharge location, % b b Home 464546 484348 Rehabilitation 634 253 Skilled nursing facility 4246 41 464441 Acute care hospital 134 044 Hospice 114 021 Left against medical advice 3 22 313 A = awakening from sedation, B = spontaneous breathing trial, C = coordination of bundle components, D = delir ium monitoring and management, E = early mobilization, IQR = interquartile range, LOS = length of stay. a Full bundle ICU across three periods, p < 0.001; partial bundle ICU did not significantly differ across three periods.b Partial vs full bundle ICU within period, p ≤ 0.01.c Hospital LOS defined as index ICU LOS + post-ICU LOS. Multiple comparisons are being made in this table. Interpretive example: 1) duration of mechanical ventilation in period 2 was shorter in the full vs partial bundl e ICU and 2) duration of mechanical ventilation significantly differed across three periods in the full bundle ICU. Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Feature Articles Critical Care Medicine www.ccmjournal.org 891 DISCUSSION This is the first large-scale prospective quality improvement study demonstrating the value of staged implementation of a bundle of evidence-based interventions aimed at reducing ICU associated weakness and delirium. We showed that the addition of (E)arly mobilization and structured interdiscipli- nary (C)oordination of bundle components to a spontaneous (B)reathing trial, (A)wakening from sedation, and (D)elirium monitoring/management program (B-AD + EC), is feasible, associated with improvements in quality of care, and is inde- pendently associated with substantial reductions in MV dura- tion, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and cost savings after adjusting for secular trends and patient-level confounders. Our findings complement the growing literature demonstrat- ing the clinical benefit of ABCDE bundle (25, 41). Simultaneous implementation of ABCDE/F bundle components has been associated with increased hospital survival and delirium and coma-free days, and reduced duration of MV (21–23). Studies suggest that ABCDE, and early mobilization in par – ticular, can be challenging to implement in routine practice (24–26, 42). Over 100 unique barriers have been identified in recent literature reviews (43). Dubb et al (44) classified these barriers into four categories: patient-related (e.g., deep seda- tion, delirium, new immobility/weakness), structural (e.g., lack of mobility protocol, limited staff and equipment, inadequate training), process related (e.g., lack of coordination), and cul- tural (e.g., lack of ICU mobility culture, staff buy-in, expertise). The positive outcomes in our study may be explained by our use of strategies specifically targeting these barriers, including: 1) reducing sedative use and delirium (B-AD, period 1) “be- fore” implementation of EC (period 2) so patients were more awake and could actively engage in mobilization; 2) mobiliza- tion of patients within 1 day of ICU admission to prevent the development of new immobility/weakness; 3) developing an interdisciplinary mobility protocol with prespecified roles and responsibilities before EC implementation; 4) obtaining admin- istrative buy-in to finance dedicated rehabilitation staff and re- habilitation equipment; 5) interdisciplinary simulation training of mobilization scenarios to enhance skills, improve interdisci- plinary communication, and increase buy-in; 6) daily interdis- ciplinary coordination of staff and bundle components; and 7) including local nursing, respiratory, rehabilitation champions in protocol development, training, and dissemination. Our large effect size may also be explained by our use of DiD analysis which mitigates against secular trends that can con- found pre-post study designs (21, 23). In addition, prior studies implemented bundle components all at once, which may reduce overall bundle compliance and offset clinical benefit if com- ponents are not fully adopted (25, 45). Barnes-Daly et al (22) showed that for every 10% increase in ABCDEF bundle com- pliance, odds for hospital survival increased by 7%. Finally, our study excluded non-MV patients from analysis since only a frac- tion of the bundle (i.e., D, E) applies to them. Their inclusion in prior studies may have diminished any effect seen (21, 23). TABLE 3. Difference-in-Differences Estimates of Change in Clinical and Cost Outc omes After AD Implementation (Baseline vs Period 1) and EC Implementation (Period 1 vs Period 2) in Mechanically Ventilated Patients a Outcome Measure Full Bundle ICU Minus Partial Bundle ICU Baseline vs Period 1 % Change (95% CI) (B minus B-AD) pPeriod 1 vs Period 2 % Change (95% CI) (B-AD minus B-AD-EC) p Clinical outcomes Duration of mechanical ventilation 7.2 (–3.3 to 18.9) 0.07–22.3 (–22.5 to –22.0) < 0.001 ICU LOS 3.0 (–6.5 to 13.5)0.16–10.3 (–15.6 to –4.7) 0.03 Hospital LOS b 5.9 (4.6–7.2) 0.01–7.8 (–8.7 to –6.9) 0.006 Cost outcomes Average daily ICU cost 2.69 (–4.9 to 10.9)0.504.4 (–4.5 to 14.1) 0.34 Total ICU cost –0.47 (–22.3 to 27.4)0.97–24.2 (–41.4 to –2.0) 0.03 Total hospital cost –0.06 (–21.4 to 27.0)0.10–30.2 (–46.1 to –9.5) 0.007 A = awakening from sedation, B = spontaneous breathing trial, C = coordination of bundle components, D = delir ium monitoring and management, E = early mobilization, LOS = length of stay. a Both models are adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, prehospital residence, admission location, Charlson Comorbidity Index, primary ad mitting diagnosis, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV. b Hospital LOS defined as index ICU LOS + post-ICU LOS. Baseline vs period 1 compares clinical and cost outcomes after AD was imp lemented in both full and partial bundle ICUs. Period 1 vs period 2 compares clinical and cost outcomes in full bundle vs partial bundle ICUs after EC was implemented in full bundle ICU only. Interpretive example: 1) implementation of AD in both ICUs was associated with no differential change in total hospital cost and 2) implementation of EC in full bundle ICU only was associated with a 7.8% reduction in hospital LOS. Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Hsieh et al 892 www.ccmjournal.org July 2019 • Volume 47 • Number 7 This is the first report on the financial impact of the en- tire ABCDE bundle. Prior analyses on the awakening/de- lirium bundle components suggested cost savings, but studies on early mobilization have reported conflicting results (35, 46, 47). Using patient-level data, we found that adding EC to B-AD led to substantial cost savings which appear to be prima- rily explained by reductions in LOS (as indicated by decreased overall costs but unchanged average daily ICU cost before and after EC implementation). Our finding that EC implementation was associated with shorter ICU and hospital LOS is consistent with prior random- ized controlled trials (RCTs) and quality improvement studies (17, 35, 48). However, two recent RCTs on early mobilization found no effect on hospital LOS. In Morris et al (49), a seda- tion protocol was not used, which may have limited the effi- cacy of spontaneous breathing trials and early mobilization. In Moss et al (50), mobilization was initiated 8 days after ICU admission (vs 1 d in this study). Given the rapid degradation of muscle of critically ill patients, mobilization may be less effec- tive if initiated after muscle loss has occurred (4). Our study highlights several areas for future research. These include assessment of patient-centered outcomes such as short and long-term disability and readmission rate, determination of return on investment, cost analyses accounting for payer status, and evaluation of bundle dissemination and sustaina- bility. The ABCDE bundle has been reframed since our 2014 study to include assessment, management and prevention of pain, and (F)amily empowerment and engagement (“F” in ABCDEF) (28). Future studies will need to reconcile our find- ings with the updated components. This study has several strengths. Our DiD approach allowed us to adjust for secular trends which could have confounded prior historically-controlled studies. We also fulfilled a ma- jority of the rigorous assumptions required for internal va- lidity of the DiD estimates. Our cost data were generated from costs attributed to individual patients rather than assumptions based on average published costs. Finally, our study evaluated one of the largest cohorts to date. This study has some limitations. Despite adjusting for patient characteristics, unmeasured differences and/or changes in cohort composition could have impacted our results. We also did not in- clude discharge location in our model. Our study was conducted in a single medical center, which may limit generalizability. For example, the bundle’s impact on quality metrics (e.g., pressure ulcers) may be greater in ICUs with higher rates at baseline than sites that have already achieved low rates. There was potential for cross-contamination of practices between the two ICUs. However, cross-contamination would have biased the estimates toward the null. Because cost-to-charge ratios change across cal- endar years, we were unable to compare costs between the same seasonal periods and needed to use a smaller cohort for the cost analyses. Although changes in processes of care were demon- strated in the full bundle ICU, data were not collected in the par – tial bundle ICU for comparison. Finally, we were unable to fulfill the parallel trend assumption for hospital LOS as it increased in the full bundle ICU relative to the partial bundle ICU in period 1. However, this would bias our findings “toward the null” making it more difficult to demonstrate subsequent decreased hospital LOS after EC implementation in period 2. Because hospital LOS decreased despite this bias, our results may underestimate the full impact of ABCDE bundle implementation. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the complex ABCDE bundle can be successfully implemented into routine care. We showed that the addition of early mobilization and bundle coordination to an established targeted sedation and de- lirium management program led to substantial reductions in MV duration, LOS, and hospital cost, liberated patients from restraints, and reduced iatrogenic complications. These data underscore the value of the ABCDE bundle and support the concept that the entire bundle is truly greater than the individual parts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the data collection contributions of Stepha- nie Coehlo, PT, Glenmore Wiggan, OT, and the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine staff for this project. REFERENCES 1. Hopkins RO, Weaver LK, Collingridge D, et al: Two-year cognitive, emotional, and quality-of-life outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171:340–347 2. Brummel NE, Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, et al: Delirium in the ICU and subsequent long-term disability among survivors of mechan- ical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:369–377 3. Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, et al; BRAIN-ICU Study Investigators: Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1306–1316 4. Puthucheary ZA, Rawal J, McPhail M, et al: Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA 2013; 310:1591–1600 5. Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, et al; Bringing to light the Risk Factors And Incidence of Neuropsychological dysfunction in ICU survivors (BRAIN-ICU) study investigators: Depression, post-trau- matic stress disorder, and functional disability in survivors of critical illness in the BRAIN-ICU study: A longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2:369–379 6. Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, et al: Improving long-term out- comes after discharge from intensive care unit: Report from a stake- holders’ conference. Crit Care Med 2012; 40:502–509 7. Vasilevskis EE, Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, et al: A screening, pre- vention, and restoration model for saving the injured brain in intensive care unit survivors. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:S683–S691 8. Morandi A, Brummel NE, Ely EW: Sedation, delirium and mechan- ical ventilation: The ‘ABCDE’ approach. Curr Opin Crit Care 2011; 17:43–49 9. Bassett R, Adams KM, Danesh V, et al: Rethinking critical care: Decreasing sedation, increasing delirium monitoring, and increasing patient mobility. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2015; 41:62–74 10. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, et al: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:278–280 11. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Implementing the ABCDE Bundle at the Bedside. 2013. Available at: https://innova- tions.ahrq.gov/qualitytools/implementing-abcde-bundle-bedside. Accessed August 20, 2018 12. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: Sedation, Delirium, and Mobility in ICU Patients. 2019. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Topics/ SedationDeliriumMobility/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 20, 2018 Copyright © 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Feature Articles Critical Care Medicine www.ccmjournal.org 893 13. Society of Critical Care Medicine: ICU Liberation. Available at: http:// www.sccm.org/Research/Quality/ICU-Liberation. Accessed August 20, 2018 14. Ely EW, Baker AM, Dunagan DP, et al: Effect on the duration of me- chanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spon- taneously. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1864–1869 15. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O’Connor MF, et al: Daily interruption of sed- ative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventila- tion. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1471–1477 16. Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, 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. Lancet 2008; 371:126–134 17. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al: Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 373:1874–1882 18. Needham DM, Korupolu R: Rehabilitation quality improvement in an intensive care unit setting: Implementation of a quality improvement model. Top Stroke Rehabil 2010; 17:271–281 19. Strøm T, Martinussen T, Toft P: A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 375:475–480 20. Klompas M, Anderson D, Trick W, et al; CDC Prevention Epicenters: The preventability of ventilator-associated events. The CDC Prevention Epicenters Wake Up and Breathe Collaborative. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191:292–301 21. Balas MC, Vasilevskis EE, Olsen KM, et al: Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/ management, and early exercise/mobility bundle. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:1024–1036 22. Barnes-Daly MA, Phillips G, Ely EW: Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: Implementing PAD guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:171–178 23. Kram SL, DiBartolo MC, Hinderer K, et al: Implementation of the ABCDE bundle to improve patient outcomes in the intensive care unit in a rural community hospital. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2015; 34:250–258 24. Carrothers KM, Barr J, Spurlock B, et al: Contextual issues influenc- ing implementation and outcomes associated with an integrated approach to managing pain, agitation, and delirium in adult ICUs. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:S128–S135 25. Miller MA, Govindan S, Watson SR, et al: ABCDE, but in that order? A cross-sectional survey of Michigan intensive care unit sedation, delirium, and early mobility practices. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12:1066–1071 26. Boehm LM, Dietrich MS, Vasilevskis EE, et al: Perceptions of work- load burden and adherence to ABCDE bundle among intensive care providers. Am J Crit Care 2017; 26:e38–e47 27. Morandi A, Piva S, Ely EW, et al: Worldwide survey of the “assess- ing pain, both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, choice of drugs, delirium monitoring/management, early exercise/mobility, and family empowerment” (ABCDEF) bundle. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:e1111–e1122 28. Balas MC, Devlin JW, Verceles AC, et al: Adapting the ABCDEF bundle to meet the needs of patients requiring prolonged mechan- ical ventilation in the long-term acute care hospital setting: Historical perspectives and practical implications. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 37:119–135 29. Jolley SE, Regan-Baggs J, Dickson RP, et al: Medical intensive care unit clinician attitudes and perceived barriers towards early mobili- zation of critically ill patients: A cross-sectional survey study. BMC Anesthesiol 2014; 14:84 30. Hsieh SJ, Levi D, Prince D, et al: Staged implementation of the ABCDE bundle improves ICU patient outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 189:A2540 31. Otusanya O, Hsieh SJ, Gong MN, et al: Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring/Management and Early Mobilization (ABCDE) bundle reduces hospital costs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193:A4357 32. Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, et al: Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: Reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation- Sedation Scale (RASS). JAMA 2003; 289:2983–2991 33. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al: The Richmond Agitation- Sedation Scale: Validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:1338–1344 34. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al: Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: Validity and reliability of the confusion assess- ment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA 2001; 286:2703–2710 35. Morris PE, Goad A, Thompson C, et al: Early intensive care unit mo- bility therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:2238–2243 36. Bellin E, Fletcher DD, Geberer N, et al: Democratizing information creation from health care data for quality improvement, research, and education-the Montefiore Medical Center Experience. Acad Med 2010; 85:1362–1368 37. Gershengorn HB, Garland A, Gong MN: Patterns of daily costs differ for medical and surgical intensive care unit patients. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12:1831–1836 38. Abadie A: Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators. Rev Econ Stud 2005; 72:1–19 39. Dimick JB, Ryan AM: Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: The difference-in-differences approach. JAMA 2014; 312:2401–2402 40. Puma MJ, Olsen RP, Bell SH, et al: What to Do When Data Are Missing in Group Randomized Controlled Trials (NCEE 2009- 0049). Washington, DC, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009 41. Ely EW: The ABCDEF bundle: Science and philosophy of how ICU liberation serves patients and families. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:321–330 42. Honiden S, Connors GR: Barriers and challenges to the suc- cessful implementation of an intensive care unit mobility program: Understanding systems and human factors in search for practical solutions. Clin Chest Med 2015; 36:431–440 43. Costa DK, White MR, Ginier E, et al: Identifying barriers to delivering the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium, and early exer- cise/mobility bundle to minimize adverse outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review. Chest 2017; 152:304–311 44. Dubb R, Nydahl P, Hermes C, et al: Barriers and strategies for early mobilization of patients in intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13:724–730 45. Trogrlić Z, van der Jagt M, Bakker J, et al: A systematic review of imple – mentation strategies for assessment, prevention, and management of ICU delirium and their effect on clinical outcomes. Crit Care 2015; 19:157 46. Lord RK, Mayhew CR, Korupolu R, et al: ICU early physical rehabili- tation programs: Financial modeling of cost savings. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:717–724 47. Awissi DK, Bégin C, Moisan J, et al: I-SAVE study: Impact of sedation, analgesia, and delirium protocols evaluated in the intensive care unit: An economic evaluation. Ann Pharmacother 2012; 46:21–28 48. Needham DM, Korupolu R, Zanni JM, et al: Early physical medicine and rehabilitation for patients with acute respiratory failure: A quality improvement project. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91:536–542 49. Morris PE, Berry MJ, Files DC, et al: Standardized rehabilitation and hospital length of stay among patients with acute respiratory failure: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315:2694–2702 50. Moss M, Nordon-Craft A, Malone D, et al: A randomized trial of an intensive physical therapy program for patients with acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193:1101–1110

Writerbay.net

We’ve proficient writers who can handle both short and long papers, be they academic or non-academic papers, on topics ranging from soup to nuts (both literally and as the saying goes, if you know what we mean). We know how much you care about your grades and academic success. That's why we ensure the highest quality for your assignment. We're ready to help you even in the most critical situation. We're the perfect solution for all your writing needs.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper