| Literature DB >> 27445527 |
Abstract
Background. Increasing numbers of individuals require long-term mechanical ventilation (LTMV) in the community. In the South West Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) in Ontario, multiple organizations have come together to design, build, and operate a system to serve adults living with LTMV. Objective. The goal was to develop an integrated approach to meet the health and supportive care needs of adults living with LTMV. Methods. The project was undertaken in three phases: System Design, Implementation Planning, and Implementation. Results. There are both qualitative and quantitative evidences that a multiorganizational system of care is now operational and functioning in a way that previously did not exist. An Oversight Committee and an Operations Management Committee currently support the system of services. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the participating organizations. There is case-based evidence that hospital admissions are being avoided, transitions in care are being thoughtfully planned and executed collaboratively among service providers, and new roles and responsibilities are being accepted within the overall system of care. Conclusion. Addressing the complex and variable needs of adults living with LTMV requires a systems response involving the full continuum of care.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27445527 PMCID: PMC4904516 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3185389
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can Respir J ISSN: 1198-2241 Impact factor: 2.409
Figure 1People, settings, and services for LTMV.
Figure 2Systems model for care transitions and planned encounters.
Selected program characteristics.
|
| ||
| (i) Approximately 200 health service providers, including 20 hospital corporations across 33 sites | ||
| (ii) Area from Lake Erie to the Bruce Peninsula and home to ~ one million people | ||
| (iii) 8 hospital sites with Level 3 ICUs totaling 97 ventilator care beds (68% in London) | ||
| (iv) Regional programs for Neuromuscular and Motor Neuron Diseases in London | ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| PMV (≥21 days on a ventilator) represents 4.6% of MSICU admissions but 38% of total ICU patient days | ||
|
| ||
| Alternate Level of Care (ALC) is defined as a ventilated patient occupying an ICU bed but not requiring the intensity of resources/services provided in this care setting. Patients declared ALC in the MSICU has decreased over the past 3 years | ||
|
| ||
| Date | Number of ALC Days | Number of patients declared ALC |
|
| ||
| 2012-13 | 588 | 6 |
| 2013-14 | 108 | 3 |
| 2014-15 | 187 | 2 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| 6 beds (100% occupancy; median LOS 1053 days with range of 136–1983 days). | ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Primary reason for LTMV | Number of active clients (as of July 2015) | Number of inactive clients (2010–2015) |
|
| ||
| Noninvasive ventilation | 139 | 133 |
| Neuromuscular disease | 97 (27 ALS) | 199 (95 ALS) |
| Chest wall restriction | 4 | 1 |
| Complex OSA/OHS | 34 | 13 |
| Central apnea | 4 | 0 |
| Invasive ventilation | 20 | 12 |
| Community | 14 | |
| PI-CCC | 6 | |
|
| ||
| Outpatient NIV starts | ||
| Year | # | |
|
| ||
| 2010 | 3 | |
| 2011 | 18 | |
| 2012 | 29 | |
| 2013 | 30 | |
| 2014 | 29 | |
| 2015 (6 months) | 17 | |
Figure 3(a) Emergency department utilization (ED visits). Total number of ED visits for all patients reliant on LTMV, by ED visit type. Note: from Q1 2010/11 until present, there have been no scheduled ED visits within this cohort. (b) Emergency department utilization (ED LOS). Length of stay (LOS) in ED (hours) for patients reliant on LTMV, 90th percentile. Note: the data above includes ED LOS in any facility that a LTMV patient visited. For comparison, in Q2 2014/15, Ontario, as a whole, had an Admitted LOS of 29.5 hours, a Non-Admitted Complex LOS of 6.8 hours, and a Non-Admitted Minor LOS of 4.0 hours. (c) Acute inpatient utilization (hospital discharges). Total number of acute inpatient discharges for all patients reliant on LTMV, by inpatient visit type.
Organizational structure characteristics.
| Oversight Committee | Operations Management Committee | Transitional care teams | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership | (i) Organization leaders | (i) Organization leaders | (i) Clinical leaders, operational leaders, and clinical specialists with direct client/patient responsibilities |
|
| |||
| Leadership attributes | (i) A systems thinker who is able to build consensus among participants and flag strategic issues | (i) An operational leader who is able to build consensus among participants and flag operational priorities | (i) A clinical/operational leader who is able to problem-solve and engage senior leaders in the solution as needed |
|
| |||
| Membership | (i) All member organizations | (i) All member organizations | (i) People within the “circle of care,” family members and client/patient |
|
| |||
| Physician leadership | (i) Respirologist | (i) Respirologist | (i) Physician involved on a case specific basis |
|
| |||
| Decision-making | (i) By consensus | (i) By consensus | (i) By consensus |
|
| |||
| Support roles | (i) Administrative support donated by Chair's agency | (i) Administrative support donated by Co-Chair's agency, shared | (i) Supported by lead organization for a particular case |
|
| |||
| Terms of reference | (i) Yes; defines mandate, role & responsibilities | (i) Yes; defines mandate, role, and responsibilities, reporting to the Oversight Committee | (i) No; but process flow maps have been created to guide decision-making processes |
|
| |||
| Level of organizational commitment | (i) High | (i) High | (i) High |