Chiou Howard, Jopling Jeffrey K, Scott Jennifer Yang, Ramsey Meghan, Vranas Kelly, Wagner Todd H, Milstein Arnold
Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Emory University School of Medicine Medical Scientist Training Program and Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 14;7(6):e015930. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015930.
There is substantial variability in intensive care unit (ICU) utilisation and quality of care. However, the factors that drive this variation are poorly understood. This study uses a novel adaptation of positive deviance approach-a methodology used in public health that assumes solutions to challenges already exist within the system to detect innovations that are likely to improve intensive care.
We used the Philips eICU Research Institute database, containing 3.3 million patient records from over 50 health systems across the USA. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa scores were used to identify the study cohort, which included ICU patients whose outcomes were felt to be most sensitive to organisational innovations. The primary outcomes included mortality and length of stay. Outcome measurements were directly standardised, and bootstrapped CIs were calculated with adjustment for false discovery rate. Using purposive sampling, we then generated a blinded list of five positive outliers and five negative comparators.Using rapid qualitative inquiry (RQI), blinded interdisciplinary site visit teams will conduct interviews and observations using a team ethnography approach. After data collection is completed, the data will be unblinded and analysed using a cross-case method to identify themes, patterns and innovations using a constant comparative grounded theory approach. This process detects the innovations in intensive care and supports an evaluation of how positive deviance and RQI methods can be adapted to healthcare.
The study protocol was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (reference: 39509). We plan on publishing study findings and methodological guidance in peer-reviewed academic journals, white papers and presentations at conferences.
重症监护病房(ICU)的利用率和护理质量存在很大差异。然而,导致这种差异的因素却鲜为人知。本研究采用了一种新颖的积极偏差方法改编版——一种在公共卫生领域使用的方法,该方法假定系统中已经存在应对挑战的解决方案,以检测可能改善重症监护的创新措施。
我们使用了飞利浦eICU研究所数据库,其中包含来自美国50多个医疗系统的330万份患者记录。使用急性生理学与慢性健康状况评价IVa评分来确定研究队列,其中包括那些结局被认为对组织创新最为敏感的ICU患者。主要结局包括死亡率和住院时间。对结局测量进行直接标准化,并在调整错误发现率的情况下计算自抽样置信区间。然后,通过目的抽样,我们生成了一份包含五个正向异常值和五个负向对照的盲选列表。使用快速定性调查(RQI),由盲选的跨学科现场访问团队采用团队人种志方法进行访谈和观察。数据收集完成后,将解除数据的盲态,并使用跨案例方法进行分析,采用持续比较扎根理论方法识别主题、模式和创新措施。这一过程可检测重症监护中的创新措施,并支持对积极偏差和RQI方法如何应用于医疗保健进行评估。
该研究方案已获得斯坦福大学机构审查委员会的批准(参考编号:39509)。我们计划在同行评审的学术期刊、白皮书以及会议报告中发表研究结果和方法学指南。