Assessment 2: Quality and Safety Gap Analysis
Capella University
NURS-FPX6202: Health Care Quality and Safety Measurement
Instructor Name
July 2024
Quality and Safety Gap Analysis
For more than twenty years, sepsis, marked by severe organ failure, has posed a significant challenge in healthcare. It is a leading cause of ICU admissions and is responsible for approximately one-third of all hospital fatalities. Around 850,000 sepsis cases are admitted annually through emergency departments. According to the CDC, 87% of sepsis cases originate outside hospital settings, emphasizing the critical role of emergency departments in early detection (Persson et al., 2021). Due to its rapid progression, immediately identifying sepsis early, administering fluids promptly, using broad-spectrum antibiotics, and managing the infection source are crucial for successful sepsis treatment. If sepsis progresses to septic shock, the risk of death significantly increases. escalates to 40% (Méndez et al., 2024). Despite the essential role of emergency departments in providing timely care, diagnosing sepsis is challenging due to its complexity and inability to be identified through superficial assessments.
Recent studies highlight the importance of improving sepsis management. Innovations such as early warning systems and telemedicine are being explored to enhance early detection and treatment. For instance, pre-hospital teletransmission by emergency teams shows promise in improving timely treatment, although its implementation is still limited.
Implication for Early Recognition and Treatment
Prompt identification of sepsis is essential for enhancing patient recovery and outcomes and reducing mortality rates. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as the frontline for identifying sepsis, given that many patients present with symptoms that require immediate attention (Basodan et al., 2022). Rapid identification and intervention, such as administering fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics, can significantly decrease the progression to severe sepsis or septic shock. Adopting advanced technologies like electronic health record (EHR) alerts and telemedicine enhances the ability of healthcare providers to detect sepsis early and initiate timely treatment (Persson et al., 2021).
Systematic Approaches in Emergency Departments
To improve sepsis management, implementing systematic approaches within EDs is essential. Standardized screening tools and clinical guidelines ensure consistent patient evaluations, minimizing the risk of missed diagnoses (Campbell et al., 2022). Training and education programs for healthcare providers on the latest sepsis management practices are crucial. Equipping ED staff with the necessary skills and knowledge enhances sepsis recognition, response accuracy, and speed (Persson et al., 2021). The effectiveness of these systematic approaches has been supported by recent studies, underscoring their importance in early sepsis detection and management.
Technological Innovations in Sepsis Management
Recent advancements in technology have significantly impacted the management of sepsis. Telemedicine, for instance, allows for real-time consultations and decision-making, facilitating faster initiation of appropriate treatments (Chen et al., 2022). Pre-hospital interventions, such as transferring patient data from ambulances to EDs, streamline the care process, ensuring timely and efficient treatment. A study by Persson et al. (2021) has shown that these technological innovations can improve patient outcomes by enabling quicker recognition and response to sepsis symptoms.
Ongoing Research and Future Directions
Ongoing research explores various strategies to enhance early sepsis recognition and treatment. Emerging data suggest integrating machine learning algorithms with EHRs can improve early detection rates (Persson et al., 2021). These algorithms analyze large datasets to identify subtle patterns indicative of sepsis, providing clinicians with advanced warning. Continuous education and simulation training for ED staff can also keep healthcare providers updated on best practices and new technologies (De et al., 2024). The combination of these approaches promises to advance sepsis care, enhancing patient recovery and lessening the impact of this potentially fatal condition.
Practice Changes
Delayed identification of sepsis leads to postponed treatment, resulting in subpar sepsis care. The emergency department established a Quality Improvement (QI) team to address this to close the gap between current sepsis care outcomes and the desired results (Persson et al., 2021). The team adopted the Plan-Study-Do-Act (PDSA) model for process improvement and performed a gap analysis to set priorities (Dellinger et al., 2023).
Developing Early Detection Systems
The priority was to create a new triage process that includes an early alert and warning system for potential sepsis cases. A screening tool was implemented to flag potential sepsis cases in the electronic patient chart if certain indicators were present (Persson et al., 2021). During check-in, the triage nurse answered “yes” or “no” questions about the patient’s condition, such as hypotension, low pulse oximetry, altered mental status, high temperature, age over 65, and a compromised immune system (Evans et al., 2021). If enough “yes” answers were recorded, a sepsis alert was triggered, prompting immediate actions such as assigning a physician, obtaining lactate levels and blood cultures, starting intravenous fluids, and notifying the pharmacy of urgent antibiotic orders.
Meeting and Exceeding Benchmarks
The second priority was to surpass national benchmarks by providing high-quality, evidence-based sepsis care. The team included clinical staff, leadership, pharmacy, and phlebotomy members. Assistant Nurse Managers (ANMs) observed triage nurses and audited charts of sepsis patients (Guarino et al., 2023). They tracked the times between sepsis recognition, the collection of lactate acids and blood cultures, and the administration of fluids and antibiotics. These times were compared to national benchmarks, revealing that the ED fell short in three categories. Antibiotics and IV fluids were often administered over three hours after patient presentation, and lactate levels were typically obtained an hour and a half post-presentation (Persson et al., 2021).
Taking Action
By identifying these deficiencies, the QI team was able to focus on improving their processes to ensure faster recognition and treatment of sepsis. Implementing these practice changes is essential for delivering timely, high-quality care to sepsis patients, ultimately improving outcomes and meeting national standards (Gustad et al., 2024).
Building a Culture of Quality and Safety in Sepsis Care
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Adult Guidelines provide crucial advice for healthcare professionals treating adult patients with sepsis or septic shock. They introduced the hour-1 bundle to emphasize the need for rapid treatment. This bundle aims to enhance care quality and achieve the best possible outcomes (Kennedy & Rudd, 2022). For patients critically ill with sepsis, every minute counts. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies that demand quick identification and immediate action (Persson et al., 2021). The hour-1 bundle instructs healthcare providers to perform blood cultures quickly, measure lactic acid levels, start fluid resuscitation, and administer broad-spectrum antibiotics, ideally within the first hour of identifying sepsis. This rapid response can significantly improve patient outcomes.
Implementing the Screening Tool
Two hospitals agreed to test the sepsis screening tool. Educational sessions were held at each hospital to train staff, and informatics nurses developed an electronic screening questionnaire to complement the existing electronic triage system. Data was collected after the pilot implementation (Markwart et al., 2020). The pilot was successful and showed improved compliance with benchmark standards. Lactic acids were drawn within 30 minutes of identifying sepsis, and the time to start IV fluids and administer antibiotics decreased significantly. IV fluids were begun within the first hour of identification, and antibiotics were administered within two hours on average, down from three hours.
Positive Outcomes
As a result of these changes, the hospitals saw a 32% reduction in sepsis mortality rates (Persson et al., 2021). Implementing these new practices has greatly improved the quality and safety of sepsis care by closing the gap between current practices and desired outcomes (Méndez et al., 2024). The pilot program demonstrated that timely interventions, guided by the SSC 2024 Guidelines and supported by proper training and electronic tools, can lead to better sepsis care (Méndez et al., 2024). By fostering a culture of quality and safety, healthcare providers can ensure that sepsis patients receive the swift, effective treatment they need to improve their chances of survival.
NURS FPX 6202 Assessment 2 Quality and Safety Gap Analysis Conclusion
Addressing the quality and safety gaps in sepsis care is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Implementing systematic approaches, advanced technologies, and early detection systems in emergency departments can significantly enhance sepsis management. The introduction of initiatives like the Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s hour-1 bundle and targeted educational programs have demonstrated success in reducing sepsis-related mortality. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement and leveraging technological advancements, healthcare providers can ensure timely, effective treatment for sepsis patients, ultimately bridging the gap between current practices and desired outcomes.
NURS FPX 6202 Assessment 2 Quality and Safety Gap Analysis References
Basodan, N., Al Mehmadi, A. E., Al Mehmadi, A. E., & Aldawood, S. (2022). Septic shock: Management and outcomes. Cureus, 14(12), e32158. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32158
Campbell, T., Latouf, K. M., Laux, L., Saunders, K., Schultz, J., & Schwartzmier, M. (2022). Emergency department initiative to improve sepsis core measure compliance. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 45(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/cnq.0000000000000385
Chen, Q., Li, R., Lin, C., Lai, C., Chen, D., Qu, H., Huang, Y., Lu, W., Tang, Y., & Li, L. (2022). Transferability and interpretability of the sepsis prediction models in the intensive care unit. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 22(1), 343. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-02090-3
De, D., Deutschman, C. S., Hellman, J., Myatra, S. N., Ostermann, M., Prescott, H. C., Talmor, D., Antonelli, M., Pontes, L. C., Bauer, S. R., Kissoon, N., Loeches, I. M., Nunnally, M., Tissieres, P., Vieillard, A., & Coopersmith, C. (2024). Surviving sepsis campaign research priorities 2023. Critical Care Medicine, 52(2), 268–296. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006135
Dellinger, R. P., Rhodes, A., Evans, L., Alhazzani, W., Beale, R., Jaeschke, R., Machado, F. R., Masur, H., Osborn, T., Parker, M. M., Schorr, C., Townsend, S. R., & Levy, M. M. (2023). Surviving sepsis campaign. Critical Care Medicine, 51(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005804
Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C. M., French, C., Machado, F. R., Mcintyre, L., Ostermann, M., Prescott, H. C., Schorr, C., Simpson, S., Wiersinga, W. J., Alshamsi, F., Angus, D. C., Arabi, Y., Azevedo, L., & Beale, R. (2021). Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Medicine, 47(11), 1181–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
Guarino, M., Perna, B., Cesaro, A. E., Maritati, M., Spampinato, M. D., Contini, C., & De Giorgio, R. (2023). 2023 update on sepsis and septic shock in adult patients: Management in the emergency department. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(9), 3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093188
Gustad, L. T., Bangstad, I. L., Torsvik, M., & Rise, M. B. (2024). Nurses’ and physicians’ experiences after implementing a quality improvement project to improve hospital sepsis awareness. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 17, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S439017
Kennedy, J. N., & Rudd, K. E. (2022). A sepsis early warning system is associated with improved patient outcomes. Cell Reports Medicine, 3(9), 100746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100746
Markwart, R., Saito, H., Harder, T., Tomczyk, S., Cassini, A., Struzek, C., Reichert, F., Eckmanns, T., & Allegranzi, B. (2020). Epidemiology and burden of sepsis acquired in hospitals and intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 46(8), 1536–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06106-2
Méndez, R., Figuerola, A., Ramasco, F., Chicot, M., Pascual, N. F., García, Í., Wernitz, A., Zurita, N. D., Semiglia, A., Pizarro, A., Saez, C., & Rodríguez, D. (2024). Decrease in mortality after implementing a hospital model to improve performance in sepsis care: Princess sepsis code. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 14(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14020149
Persson, I., Östling, A., Arlbrandt, M., Söderberg, J., & Becedas, D. (2021). A machine learning sepsis prediction algorithm for intended intensive care unit use (NAVOY Sepsis): Proof-of-concept study. JMIR Formative Research, 5(9), e28000. https://doi.org/10.2196/28000
