Search for a command to run...
Introduction NHS indicators for quality improvement (QI) are divided into key domains - safety, experience, outcome and effectiveness. Patient experience has been shown to be positively related to clinical effectiveness and safety and should not be overlooked when assessing the effectiveness of a service. The introduction of a new Anaesthesia-Led Propofol Sedation (ALPS) service in 2012 was pivotal in managing patients undergoing complex endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to establish a continuous quality improvement programme to take an already successful service and pursue excellence. Methods Measures and scores were agreed within the domains of patient optimisation, outcome and experience, and service efficiency. A composite score was used as an Excellence Score. All patient episodes were scored by the same anaesthetist using a 3-point qualitative scale; fully (>95% complete, 2 points), largely (75–95% complete, 1 point) and partially/not achieved (<75% complete, 0 points). Individual domain scores and the Excellence Score were presented as a percentage, in terms of the current service and “What If” scores to show the impact of changing practice. Patient experience was measured indirectly and with a telephone questionnaire at one-week post-discharge. Results were discussed in an MDT focus group, interventions instigated and the data recollected three months later and re-discussed. Results 40 consecutive patients attending for complex endoscopic procedures from January to June 2013 were reviewed. Table 1 shows scores during the first three months and the influence of implemented changes. Across all scores, improvement was seen, particularly in the Efficiency Score which increased by 22%. Abstract PTH-027 Table 1 Domain and excellence scores over the six-month QI period Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Outcome score 93% 97% Experience score 86% 93% Efficiency score 62% 85% Excellence score 68% 75% A patient optimisation score reflected a guideline-compliant service, but was initially low due to a lack of pre-assessment and individualised patient preparation, and sporadic use of an adapted WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. A “What If” score of 82% was presented, showing the potential service gains in the presence of these additions. Consequently managers agreed to fund use of the Hospital Preoperative Assessment Service and clinical staff agreed to implement regular use of an adapted WHO Safe Surgery Checklist. Conclusion Achieving excellence depends upon acknowledging weaknesses in practice that may already be very good. This study has shown the value of a quality improvement programme in improving a new, innovative service. Often adoption of care elements used routinely elsewhere within the hospital setting can lead to significant improvements in patient care and the efficiency of the service. Disclosure of Interest None Declared.