Objective
Childhood cancer metrics are currently primarily focused on survival rates and late effects of therapy. Our objectives were to design and test a metric that reflected overall quality and safety performance, across all cancer types, of an oncology–bone marrow transplant service line and to use the metric to drive improvement.
Method
The Cancer Care Index (CCI) aggregates adverse safety events and missed opportunities for best practices into a composite score that reflects overall program performance without regard to cancer type or patient outcome. Fifteen domains were selected in 3 areas as follows: (1) treatment-related quality and safety, (2) provision of a harm-free environment, and (3) psychosocial support. The CCI is the aggregate number of adverse events or missed opportunities to provide quality care in a given time frame. A lower CCI reflects better care and improved overall system performance. Multidisciplinary microsystem-based teams addressed specific aims for each domain. The CCI was widely followed by all team members, particularly frontline providers.
Results
The CCI was easy to calculate and deploy and well accepted by the staff. The annual CCI progressively decreased from 278 in 2012 to 160 in 2014, a 42% reduction. Improvements in care were realized across most index domains. Multiple new initiatives were successfully implemented.
Conclusions
The CCI is a useful metric to document performance improvement across a broad range of domains, regardless of cancer type. By the use of quality improvement science, progressive reduction in CCI has occurred over a 3-year period.
A robust influenza vaccination program implemented using a standardized QI approach can sustain a high vaccination rate in a pediatric oncology population receiving active treatment. The influenza infection rate was under 10% in the vaccinated group.
Background:
Pediatric hematology, oncology, and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients are at increased risk for bloodstream infections. The authors sought to evaluate the influence of a standardized best practice central venous catheter (CVC) maintenance bundle on the burden of and risk factors for mucosal barrier injury (MBI) and non-MBI central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) across a common inpatient and ambulatory continuum in this high-risk population.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study of patients with underlying malignancy, hematologic disorders, and HCT recipients with a CVC in place at the time of CLABSI diagnosis in both inpatient and ambulatory settings from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016. Descriptive, nonparametric statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and outcomes. Logistic regression analyses were applied to identify potential risk factors for inpatient versus ambulatory and MBI versus non-MBI CLABSI.
Results:
During the 5-year period, 118 of 808 (14.6%) patients had 159 laboratory-confirmed CLABSIs for ambulatory and inpatient CLABSI rates of 0.27 CLABSI/1000 and 2.2 CLABSI/1000 CVC days, respectively. CLABSI occurred more frequently in hospitalized patients after HCT and with underlying leukemia, most frequently caused by Gram-negative bacteria. MBI CLABSI accounted for 42% of all CLABSI with a 3-fold higher risk in hospitalized patients. Having multiple CVC or a CVC that was not a port independently associated with higher CLABSI risk.
Conclusions:
In our cohort, non-MBI CLABSI continued to account for the majority of CLABSI. CVC type is independently associated with higher overall CLABSI risk. Further studies are needed to reliably define additional prevention strategies when CLABSI maintenance bundles elements are optimized in this high-risk population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.