In new research, led by Brigham and Women’s Hospital, researchers tested a structured and technology–centered program that was focused on team communication and patient engagement. They found that this approach was associated with a lower rate of adverse events and improved patient satisfaction. Results of this project, named PROSPECT (Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology), were published in August issue of the journal Critical Care Medicine.

“Our goal was to shift our clinical thinking from ‘What is the matter?’ to discovering ‘What matters to you?’” said Patricia Dykes, PhD, RN, a senior nurse scientist in the Center for Patient Safety, Research and Practice at BWH and lead author of the paper.

Researchers developed an intervention to support integrated, multidisciplinary patient–centered communication characterized by shared checklists, health information, and goals of care articulated by both clinicians and patients. The aim of the intervention, which was tested in two medical ICUs at BWH and included 1,075 patients and their care partners, was to reduce adverse events defined as falls, pressure ulcers, catheter–associated urinary tract infections and ventilator–associated events. Secondarily, the team also sought to improve patient and care partners’ satisfaction rates, agreement on care plans between patient and providers, and healthcare utilization.

The specific interventions were systems–based and included a 60–min training session for all clinicians involved in the study. The training introduced a standard model for care meant to enhance clinicians’ responsiveness to the needs, concerns and expectations of the patients and their care partners as well as training on a web–based toolkit to facilitate team communication and patient engagement. The web–based toolkit included an ICU safety checklist that populated with real–time data from the patient’s electronic health record (EHR). The toolkit also included shared care planning and messaging tools accessed by clinicians through the EHR and by patients and care partners through a bedside portal on an iPad. Eighteen percent of patients and care partners used the portal to document their goals of care, their preferences, and to directly communicate.

When compared to a similar group of ICU patients, researchers found that the intervention was associated with a 29 percent reduction in adverse events. The reduction was determined by the drop in adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Patient days are the total number of days for all patients who were admitted for an episode of care, for example, 20 patients in a hospital for 1 day would represent 20 patient days. The rate fell from 59 per 1,000 patient days in the baseline period to 41.9 per 1,000 patient days in the intervention period, driven by a drop in the number of catheter–associated urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers. While researchers are unable to determine which specific component of the intervention drove this reduction, they suspect it is due largely to implementation of the electronic check list, as only a small percentage of patients or care partners participated through the portal.

Researchers also found an improvement in patient satisfaction scores, which were captured through a survey of a subsample of patients and care partners. Ninety–three percent of patients in the intervention who responded to the survey assigned a top score to their overall hospital rating score compared to 71.8 percent of patients in the baseline group. Care partner satisfaction also improved, from 84.3 to 90 percent. Changes in concordance of the care plan between the care team and patients was not observed and resource utilization did not significantly change between the intervention and baseline groups.