We tested, refined & improved the process for walk-in stroke patients using an 8 min scenario and 25min debriefing with a multidisciplinary team led by stroke NP Lee Barratt
A boardroom meeting never would've accomplished the same.
1/
We began with a pre-brief to discuss potential challenges and opportunities for improvement.
RNs, MDs, clinical assistants from ED and neurology all provided input.
Then, rather than guess whether these ideas worked, we went right to the clinical environment to test them.
2/
A simulated scenario was run within the actual emergency dept to understand how these patients would be quickly identified, a Code Stroke would be activated and key processes initiated.
Participants & observers provided feedback and perspectives during the debriefing.
3/
Decisions were made with high degree of certainty because we had all just observed the actual experience.
Far too often in healthcare we make decisions by guessing...and hope that things work out.
The efficiency of #simulation informed design is often unmatched.
4/
A few subtle observations linked to the strengths of this process
1. Ideas were directly linked to observations. We removed the guess work from the process
2. We established a flattened hierarchy where everyone's opinions were treated as equal
5/
3. People were standing & moving for most of the session, creating a far more engaged group than typical meetings with people on their phones/laptops (or asleep!).
4. The group was multi-disciplinary and cross departmental.
The development of the translational simulation program @UnityHealthTO & @Sim_UnityHealth has normalized process improvement & #design through simulation.
This results in greater engagement among staff, faster & more accurate decisions and ultimately better patient care.
It may sound semantic, but it shifts priorities away from exclusively transfusion & towards a broader focus of controlling hemorrhage by:
- blood products
- normothermia
- TXA
- correct coagulopathy
- definitive hemostasis
2/
2. What criteria should be used to decide on activating MHP?
No existing scoring tool is sufficiently sensitive/specific to be the "final answer" for this question. If you're going to use a score, try the RABT score
We find it more practical to use a 2 step process...
3/
We followed the 7 Ts of the MHP (credit @ORBCoN1) 2/
1.Trigger – When to “trigger” MHP is of utmost importance yet remains challenging given the lack of accurate scoring tools. RABT likely has greatest utility but our preferred approach is a 2-tiered process depicted below (especially since most pts respond to only 1-2U)
A few reflections as I look around a dysfunctional healthcare system.
I see firsthand every day how terrible the situation is yet one of the unfortunate features of staffing a system with such resilient healthcare workers...is that it will never truly "collapse"...
🧵
it will just gradually deliver worse care.
And the inadequate access or poor care will never fully be visible to the public...nor will the public be aware of what all these amazing HCWs are truly capable of because we systemically impair their abilities
Instead, we'll gradually accept longer wait times...whereby we get accustomed to 6-10hr waits in the ED from 2-3hrs a few yrs ago...
At the decision making workshop with @emergmedottawa, we discussed 8 specific ways to make better decisions.
Here’s a recap 🧵:
1/
1.Reduce decisions when possible:
Design your system so that decisions don’t need to be made in the moment.
Ever try to eat healthy? It’s far easier at the beginning of the day than the end. Rather than rely on will power, ensure your environment supports your goals…
2/
i.e. remove the junk food from the house.
In medicine, use clinical decision rules, or decide a priori how you’re going to proceed before you’re faced with the situation. Create rules around frequent decisions.
3/
Every day clinicians struggle with equipment, space and layout that encumbers, rather than helps them do their job.
A 🧵on how we applied human factors principles, usability testing & #simulation informed design to our new pediatric resus tower
1/
Our previous cart was a Broselow (color) based design. Lots of good human factors principles here but it's clear that even good HF intentions can be overcome when cluttered. Also the equip wasn't optimal.
Following design thinking principles, we began defining the problem 2/
We did substantial listening to our staff and seeking out expert feedback from pediatric MD & RN colleagues who work at peds centres.
We reviewed clinical cases.
We ran peds simulations with our existing equipment & identified several issues.
2/