cusp 4 mvp – vap exposure receipt assessment 1: aggregated results (cohort 1)

CUSP 4 MVP – VAPExposure Receipt Assessment 1: Aggregated Results (Cohort 1)

Kisha Ali, MS

Roshanak Hakimian

October 8, 2014

2

Exposure Receipt Assessment

• Metric designed to close the gap between hospital unit leads and frontline providers

• Purpose is to help identify and work with teams to provide needed training, resources, or other aids

• Pioneered in the CUSP for VAP Maryland and Pennsylvania Pilot Project– paper based

• Evolved for CUSP4MVP-VAP – now electronic, questions reflect most updated evidence for VAE prevention

3

Exposure Receipt Assessment

• Metric allows the implementation components of the project to be quantified

• Data provided directly by front-line staff with direct-patient care

• In congruence with the Implementation Assessment - tools are complementary

• Assessment

– consist of solely quantitative questions

– Anonymous

– Semi-annual

• Supports improvement efforts of individual units

4

Unit Participation:Results of Compliance

Participation Overall:

- Aggregated results from Cohort 1

- Administered 3 months into the project (May – Jun 2014)

- 593 observations

- 7 states

Participation by State: Coordinating Entity (n= # of units)

Number of Front-line Staff that Completed ERA

Contribution to Result Data (%)

UHC (n= 2) 90 15.18MHA Keystone (n=19) 201 33.91Texas (n= 7) 157 26.48New Jersey (n=13) 76 12.82Tennessee (n = 9) 69 11.64South Carolina (n= 6) 0 0Independent (n= 1) 0 0

5

Exposure Receipt Assessment Measures

• Results divided into 3 categories based on question type to

allow similar components to be examined together. The

categorical measures are as follows:

1. Distribution of participants

2. CUSP Components of the intervention

3. MVP-VAP Components of the intervention

6

Distribution of Participants

What is your role in the Unit?

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

7

CUSP Components of the Intervention

How familiar are you with CUSP?

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

8

CUSP Components of the Intervention

Do you have a CUSP team on your unit?

Has CUSP been active at improving patient safety?

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

9

CUSP Components of the Intervention

Have you watched a Science of Safety presentation

Have you completed a Staff Safety Assessment

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

10

CUSP Components of the Intervention

Have you used the Learning from Defects tool?

For how many patients has your unit used Daily Goals?

11

Summary:CUSP Components of the Intervention

• The majority of units participating in Cohort 1 are familiar with

CUSP

• Half the units have CUSP teams, but only 50% of those teams

are active, and even less are using all the CUSP tools

• Overall, providers believe that these teams are somewhat active

at improving patient safety.

• Penetrance and use of the tools, Staff Safety Assessment and

Science of Safety, are high

• Penetrance and use of the tools, Learning from Defects and

Daily Goals, are low

12

MVP - VAP Components of theIntervention

Do you know your unit’s VAP or VAE rate(s)?

13

MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention

Which of these interventions are being used by your Unit and how often?

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

14

MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention

Do you believe that the interventions in MVP-VAP bundle will help to prevent VAE on your Unit?

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

15

MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention

In your opinion, which of the following interventions are most likely to prevent VAE? (Select 3)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

16

MVP - VAP Components of the Intervention

In your opinion, where is the biggest opportunity to improve care of mechanically ventilated patients in your unit?

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Un

its

17

Summary: VAP Components of the Intervention

• Overwhelming proportion of front-line providers believe

the technical interventions prevent VAE

• Most front-line staff know their VAE rates

• All 6 MVP-VAP bundle interventions measured are being

used at least 50% of the time

• Providers believe early mobility represents the biggest

opportunity to improve care for MVP

18

Conclusion

• Results represent the perspective of 593 front-line clinicians surveyed in the Exposure Receipt Assessment 1 for Cohort 1

• Units will soon be able to track implementation successes and barriers over time via CECity platform

• Assessments will continue to be administered semi-annually

– Next ERA assessment will be administered Nov. 2014

• This assessment helps identify

– Additional opportunities for education and training on the unit

– Bridges the gap in information

– Areas of success

• Remember to involve your font-line staff in the CUSP4MVP-VAP project

19

Thank you!

Questions?