BackgroundIn eligible patients with acute ischaemic stroke, rapid revascularisation is crucial for good outcome. At our treatment centre, we had achieved and sustained a median door-to-needle time of under 30 min. We hypothesised that further improvement could be achieved through implementing a revised treatment protocol and in situ simulation-based team training sessions. This report describes a quality improvement project aiming to reduce door-to-needle times in stroke thrombolysis.MethodsAll members of the acute stroke treatment team were surveyed to tailor the interventions to local conditions. Through a review of responses and available literature, the improvement team suggested changes to streamline the protocol and designed in situ simulation-based team training sessions. Implementation of interventions started in February 2017. We completed 14 simulation sessions from February to June 2017 and an additional 12 sessions from November 2017 to March 2018. Applying Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model, participant reactions, clinical behaviour and patient outcomes were measured. Statistical process control charts were used to demonstrate changes in treatment times and patient outcomes.ResultsA total of 650 consecutive patients, including a 3-year baseline, treated with intravenous thrombolysis were assessed. Median door to needle times were significantly reduced from 27 to 13 min and remained consistent after 13 months. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum charts indicate a reduced proportion of patients deceased or bedridden after 90 days. There was no significant change in balancing measures (stroke mimics, fatal intracranial haemorrhage and prehospital times).ConclusionsImplementing a revised treatment protocol in combination with in situ simulation-based team training sessions for stroke thrombolysis was followed by a considerable reduction in door-to-needle times and improved patient outcomes. Additional work is needed to assess sustainability and generalisability of the interventions.

Background and purposeThere is conflicting evidence regarding whether physicians’ clinical experience affects healthcare quality. Knowing whether an association exists and which dimensions of quality might be affected can help healthcare services close quality gaps by tailoring improvement initiatives according to physicians’ clinical experience. Here, we present a systematised review that aims to assess the potential association between physicians’ clinical experience and different dimensions of healthcare quality.MethodsWe conducted a systematised literature review, including the databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and PubMed. The search strategy involved combining predefined terms that describe physicians’ clinical experience with terms that describe different dimensions of healthcare quality (ie, safety, clinical effectiveness, patient-centredness, timeliness, efficiency and equity). We included relevant, original research published from June 2004 to November 2020.ResultsFifty-two studies reporting 63 evaluations of the association between physicians’ clinical experience and healthcare quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, 27 (43%) evaluations found a positive or partially positive association between physicians’ clinical experience and healthcare quality; 22 (35%) found no association; and 14 (22%) evaluations reported a negative or partially negative association. We found a proportional association between physicians’ clinical experience and quality regarding outcome measures that reflect safety, particularly in the surgical fields. For other dimensions of quality, no firm evidence was found.ConclusionWe found no clear evidence of an association between measures of physicians’ clinical experience and overall healthcare quality. For outcome measures related to safety, we found that physicians’ clinical experience was proportional with safer care, particularly in surgical fields. Our findings support efforts to secure adequate training and supervision for early-career physicians regarding safety outcomes. Further research is needed to reveal the potential subgroups in which gaps in quality due to physicians’ clinical experience might exist.

No abstract

BackgroundRapid revascularisation in acute ischaemic stroke is crucial to reduce its total burden including societal costs. A quality improvement (QI) project that included streamlining the stroke care pathway and simulation-based training was followed by a significant reduction in median door-to-needle time (27 to 13 min) and improved patient outcomes after stroke thrombolysis at our centre. Here, we present a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of the QI project.MethodsCosts for implementing and sustaining QI were assessed using recognised frameworks for economic evaluations. Effectiveness was calculated from previously published outcome measures. Cost-effectiveness was presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios including costs per minute door-to-needle time reduction per patient, and costs per averted death in the 13-month post-intervention period. We also estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a projected 5-year post-intervention period and for varying numbers of patients treated with thrombolysis. Furthermore, we performed a sensitivity analysis including and excluding costs of unpaid time.ResultsAll costs including fixed costs for implementing the QI project totalled US$44 802, while monthly costs were US$2141. We calculated a mean reduction in door-to-needle time of 13.1 min per patient and 6.36 annual averted deaths. Across different scenarios, the estimated costs per minute reduction in door-to-needle time per patient ranged from US$13 to US$29, and the estimated costs per averted death ranged from US$4679 to US$10 543.ConclusionsWe have shown that a QI project aiming to improve stroke thrombolysis treatment at our centre can be implemented and sustained at a relatively low cost with increasing cost-effectiveness over time. Our work builds on the emerging theory and practice for economic evaluations in QI projects and simulation-based training. The presented cost-effectiveness data might help guide healthcare leaders planning similar interventions.