RATIONALE: Checklists may reduce errors of omission for critically ill patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether prompting to use a checklist improves process of care and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) of a tertiary care university hospital. Patients admitted to either of two independent MICU teams were included. Intervention team physicians were prompted to address six parameters from a daily rounding checklist if overlooked during morning work rounds. The second team (control) used the identical checklist without prompting. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and forty prompted group patients were compared with 125 control and 1,283 preintervention patients. Compared with control, prompting increased median ventilator-free duration, decreased empirical antibiotic and central venous catheter duration, and increased rates of deep vein thrombosis and stress ulcer prophylaxis. Prompted group patients had lower risk-adjusted ICU mortality compared with the control group (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.96; P = 0.041) and lower hospital mortality compared with the control group (10.0 vs. 20.8%; P = 0.014), which remained significant after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.76; P = 0.008). Observed-to-predicted ICU length of stay was lower in the prompted group compared with control (0.59 vs. 0.87; P = 0.02). Checklist availability alone did not improve mortality or length of stay compared with preintervention patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-site, preliminary study, checklist-based prompting improved multiple processes of care, and may have improved mortality and length of stay, compared with a stand-alone checklist. The manner in which checklists are implemented is of great consequence in the care of critically ill patients.
RATIONALE: Checklists may reduce errors of omission for critically illpatients. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether prompting to use a checklist improves process of care and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) of a tertiary care university hospital. Patients admitted to either of two independent MICU teams were included. Intervention team physicians were prompted to address six parameters from a daily rounding checklist if overlooked during morning work rounds. The second team (control) used the identical checklist without prompting. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and forty prompted group patients were compared with 125 control and 1,283 preintervention patients. Compared with control, prompting increased median ventilator-free duration, decreased empirical antibiotic and central venous catheter duration, and increased rates of deep vein thrombosis and stress ulcer prophylaxis. Prompted group patients had lower risk-adjusted ICU mortality compared with the control group (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.96; P = 0.041) and lower hospital mortality compared with the control group (10.0 vs. 20.8%; P = 0.014), which remained significant after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.76; P = 0.008). Observed-to-predicted ICU length of stay was lower in the prompted group compared with control (0.59 vs. 0.87; P = 0.02). Checklist availability alone did not improve mortality or length of stay compared with preintervention patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-site, preliminary study, checklist-based prompting improved multiple processes of care, and may have improved mortality and length of stay, compared with a stand-alone checklist. The manner in which checklists are implemented is of great consequence in the care of critically illpatients.
Authors: J Y Fagon; J Chastre; M Wolff; C Gervais; S Parer-Aubas; F Stéphan; T Similowski; A Mercat; J L Diehl; J P Sollet; A Tenaillon Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2000-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sean M Berenholtz; Peter J Pronovost; Pamela A Lipsett; Deborah Hobson; Karen Earsing; Jason E Farley; Shelley Milanovich; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Bradford D Winters; Haya R Rubin; Todd Dorman; Trish M Perl Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J Chastre; J Y Fagon; M Bornet-Lecso; S Calvat; M C Dombret; R al Khani; F Basset; C Gibert Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Curtis H Weiss; Julia Poncela-Casasnovas; Joshua I Glaser; Adam R Pah; Stephen D Persell; David W Baker; Richard G Wunderink; Luís A Nunes Amaral Journal: Phys Rev X Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 15.762
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Billie S Davis; Tri Q Le; Jonathan G Yabes; Chung-Chou H Chang; Derek C Angus Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: James M Walter; Jacqueline M Kruser; Paul A Reyfman; Peter H S Sporn Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 21.405