View
9
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
11/29/2016
1
Nulliparous Cesarean Section Reduction Initiative
(PC-02)—Implementation across the System—
Keeping Normal, Normal!
Carolinas HealthCare System
Why are cesarean deliveries a concern?
• Current method of delivery for over 30% of babies born in the United
States
• Higher associated morbidity compared to vaginal deliveries with the
current pregnancy as well as future pregnancies
• Higher incidences of intraoperative complications
• Longer lengths of stay in the facility
• Consume higher health care dollars.
11/29/2016
2
CESAREAN RATE REDUCTION
Reduction in the first-time cesarean delivery rate is the main strategy
PC-02—What is this?
• Joint Commission Perinatal Core Measure
– Publicly reported for facilities >300 deliveries effective January 2015
• Included patients:
– Nulliparous patients (first baby)
– Term pregnancy (37 completed weeks of pregnancy)
– Singleton gestation (one baby)
– Vertex presentation (head down)
• Numerator: Patients meeting above criteria delivered by cesarean
section
• Denominator: All patients meeting the above criteria
11/29/2016
3
National C/S Rates—What Does the Variation Tell Us?
• National data for the nulliparous CS rates vary between hospitals,
physician groups, and individual physician providers within the
groups
• Significant national hospital-level variation in the rates
– 2.4%-70% PC-02 rates for these low-risk women—quite the variation!!
• Contemporary patterns show that labor may progress more gradually
than previously believed and result in a vaginal delivery—we need to
allow more time for labor progression
• Nationally, we do not have a standard approach to managing labor
What Did We Need To Do?
• Standardize the approach for labor management to reduce variation
in the practice
• Contemporary labor patterns show the following:
– it may take more than 6 hours to progress from 4 to 5 cm and more than 3 hours to
progress from 5 to 6 cm of dilation
– active phase of labor often does not start until the patient is 6 cm or more dilated
• Allow patients more time to progress through the stages of labor
before diagnosing labor dystocia in contemporary women
11/29/2016
4
How did we start?
• Multidisciplinary team formed as part of the IHI Perinatal
Improvement Community (PIC) representing our health care system
(OBGYN providers, nursing, and administrative representatives)
• Goal was to develop a plan for PC-02 rate reduction
Role of the Leadership Team
• Attended IHI PIC face-to-face meetings
• Reviewed the evidence presented by the IHI faculty
– Obstetrical governing societies
– Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM)
– American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
• Presented the evidence to the system-wide perinatal collaborative for
approval and eventual adoption
• Identified a pilot site—CHS NorthEast
11/29/2016
5
Steps for Implementation of PC-02 Initiative
• Presentation of evidence based guidelines for the pilot site
• Education for providers, leadership, and nursing staff on practice
changes that needed to occur
• Communication of baseline data by facility rates, individual practice
rates, and provider specific rates to system-level leaders, facility
leaders, providers, and nursing staff
• Creation of a toolkit for system spread
Steps for Initiative
• Each facility emphasized transparency and published individual
provider and group/practice PC-02 rates
• Group rates shared within the Ambulatory Medical Group
• Pilot site began initiative 1/1/14—CHS NorthEast
• Two facilities were early adopters—went live 4/1/14—CHS Lincoln,
CHS University
• Initiative go-live across CHS occurred 7/1/14
11/29/2016
6
Challenges with Reducing the C/S Rate
• Providers and nursing staff did not understand exactly what PC-02
measured—this is not a primary cesarean section rate—education
was required
• Individual rates and practice rates were provided—required time to
review the data
• Providers were often surprised with their individual rate and some
questioned the validity of the data
• Some providers challenged the new ACOG/SMFM
guidelines/recommendations for managing labor
Success Story with Reducing the PC-02 Rate
• Overall Carolinas HealthCare System’s rate decreased from 27.02%
in 2013 to 21.79% in 2015
11/29/2016
7
What Does This Success Story Really Say?
• In 2013, our system had 30,509 deliveries
– 8,416 women in the PC-02 population
– 2,274 had cesarean deliveries
– 27.02% PC-02 rate
• In 2015, our system had 30,872 deliveries
– 10,322 women in the PC-02 population
– 2,249 had cesarean deliveries
– 21.79% PC-02 rate
How Many Lives Have Been Changed???
What Does This Really Mean??
• If our PC-02 rate in 2015 had been 27.02%, 2,790 women would
have had a cesarean delivery compared with 2,249 that actually had
a cesarean delivery
• That is 541 women that did not have a cesarean delivery in 2015 that
would have had if performance had not improved from 2 years ago
• If we count both Mom and Baby…..
1,082 lives were changed in our
system in one year!!
11/29/2016
8
Cost Avoidance
• Cesarean deliveries are estimated to cost $7,000 MORE than
vaginal deliveries
• In 2015, 541 women avoided a cesarean delivery with our new
practice
Cost avoidance for one year for this quality improvement project
$3,787,000!
The Joint Commission PC-02 Rate
29.6%28.1% 27.9% 27.0%
23.8%21.7%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
CHS PC-02 Rate by Year
**In 2011-2012, the Perinatal Quality Collaborative of North Carolina (PQCNC)
had a Supporting Intended Vaginal Birth (SIVB) Initiative where many of our
facilities participated in the work
11/29/2016
9
The Joint Commission PC-02 Rate
UCL 0.305
CL 0.263
LCL 0.221
20.0%
22.0%
24.0%
26.0%
28.0%
30.0%
32.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Perc
en
t
Year
CHS PC-02 Rate Reduction by Year
The Joint Commission PC-02 Rate
27.9
%
27.0
%
27.5
%
25.7
%
25.3
%
22.6
%
23.4
%
22.4
%
22.5
%
22.4
%
20.7
%
21.0
%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
CHS PC-02 Rate by Quarter 2013-2015
11/29/2016
10
27.6
%
24.3
%
24.1
%
24.4
%
22.7
%
20.8
%
23.9
%
23.2
%
23.2
%
21.5
% 24.1
0%
21.9
%
21.1
%
24.1
%
22.1
%
21.5
%
24.7
%
23.1
%
20.3
% 22.6
%
21.4
%
20.5
%
20.8
%
21.9
%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Jan
-14
Fe
b-1
4
Ma
r-14
Ap
r-14
Ma
y-1
4
Ju
n-1
4
Ju
l-14
Au
g-1
4
Se
p-1
4
Oct-
14
No
v-1
4
Dec-1
4
Jan
-15
Feb
-15
Ma
r-15
Ap
r-15
Ma
y-1
5
Ju
n-1
5
Ju
l-15
Au
g-1
5
Se
p-1
5
Oct-
15
No
v-1
5
Dec-1
5
CHS PC-02 Rate by Month 2014-2015
1st shift Median 23.552nd Median 21.7
Pilot site started
2 Early Adopter sites
go live 4/2014Go Live
Everyone
Baseline 27.02%
PC-02 Rate by Month
Median
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan
'14
Fe
b '1
4
Marc
h'1
4
Ap
ril '1
4
May '14
Jun
e '14
July
'14
Au
g '14
Se
pt
'14
Oct '1
4
No
v '14
De
c '14
Jan
'15
Fe
b '1
5
Marc
h'1
5
Ap
ril '15
May '15
Jun
e '15
Jun
e '15
Au
g '15
Se
pt
'15
Oct '1
5
No
v '15
De
c '15
PC-02
Percentage
23.55
Signal= Shift –
7 points below the median
Run Charts Rules Summary
Signals of non-random patterns:
1. Shift - 6 or more consecutive points either all
above or all below the median
2. Trend - 5 or more consecutive points all going
up or all going down.
3. Runs - Too few or too many runs.
4. Astronomical point - A point obviously different
from the rest, "everyone agrees." This rule is
subjective, unlike rules 1-3, which are
probability based.
1/3/2015 3
See Perla et al. (2010) for further explanation and details
11/29/2016
11
Sustainability of PC-02 Improvement
• Transparency of data is reported by facility, practice, and provider
quarterly
• Practice level and provider level trends are reviewed
• Engagement and collaboration of Acute Care and Ambulatory
Leadership– PC-02 performance is part of Acute care and Ambulatory Leader goals (including
physician leaders)—Alignment of goals across the service line
• Peer review and case study development is occurring for cesarean
cases not meeting criteria
Sustainability of PC-02 Improvement
• What you measure, you improve!
• Communicate, communicate, communicate!!
• Don’t take your eyes off the ball!
11/29/2016
12
Next Steps
• Continue with goal alignment across the system
• Determine what each facility needs in terms of support—
individualize
• Focus on the facilities that have not shown improvement or have had
rate increase—though we’re a system of One, we have different
challenges– Continue to support those facilities with good results and work with others to improve
results
Learning Design/Collaborative Structure
• Monthly collaborative Perinatal Quality system-level meetings
– Nursing Leadership—each facility represented
– Provider Leadership—each facility represented
• Reporting of Perinatal Core Measures and other Perinatal Quality
initiatives
• Sharing of best practices, success stories and opportunities
identified/lessons learned
• Peer review/peer discussions for providers with a higher than
average rate for PC-02 using case studies
11/29/2016
13
TIPS FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
PDSA MODEL FOR IMPROVEMENT
11/29/2016
14
Plan—Where to Begin??
• Do you have high performers that can be identified as champions
for your improvement project?
• Establish best practice protocols/guidelines for the change
needed
• Educate teammates on these new best practices
Plan—Next Steps
• Important to know what exactly it is that you are measuring—gain
understanding
• Gain trust with the data—data integrity is essential
11/29/2016
15
Do—Implement Improvement Strategies
• Once trust is gained, then you can work on improvement strategies
Study—Where to Focus the Work
• Review data variations to determine where to focus the
improvement efforts
• Discussions with facility leaders and providers with low performance
• Know your data—this will require case reviews and deep dives
into the reasons for the variation in performance
11/29/2016
16
Study—Show Them the Data!!
• Competition is a great driver for improvement!
• Be transparent with the data
• Have peer to peer conversations regarding following evidence-
based practice—engage your provider champions
Act—Successful Approaches for Addressing Variation
• Transparency with the data and accountability for performance
– Consider including in the Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE)
– Peer review for cases not following guidelines
– Link performance to provider and leader compensation
• Goal alignment across the system is key—all working together for
success!
• Outside sources may force improvement for facility viability—let’s
have great performance without this “stick”
– Medicaid payment plans
– Private payers
– Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Distinction for Maternity Care
11/29/2016
17
Take Aways
• This work has a meaningful impact to both mom and baby
• Goal alignment with stakeholders across the system is key to
success
• Standardization of care utilizing evidence based practice is needed
to reduce variation in care delivery
Questions??
11/29/2016
18
Toolkit Elements for PC-02 Initiative
• Data collection tool
• Algorithm
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• PC-02 Scorecard
• Deep dives into numerator cases (cesarean sections)
CHS PC-02 Algorithm
Scheduled Admission
C-Section
Patient delivers via C-Section(Will be included in Numerator &
Denominator)
YesIs there a medical
indication for induction?
Document the Bishop Score
Place Cervical Ripening Agent
Is the Bishop Score <8?
Induction of Labor
Yes
Continue with Induction of Labor
See Page 2
No
Is the pt between39-
39+6 weeks?
NoNot a candidate for
induction or admission; d/c to home
Yes
Is the pt 40-40+6
weeks?
No
Document the Bishop Score
Yes
Is the Bishop Score <8?
Not a candidate for induction or admission;
d/c to homeYes
Patient meets criteria for induction
No
YesIs the
pt >41 weeks?
NoYes
PC-02 Algorithm
F:\IHI information\Perinatal Improvement Community\CHS Leadership Team\PC-02 project\algorithm\PC-02 Algorithm For Admission-Modified by PI vsd revised 3-3-14 (2).vsd
PC-02 Patient Population is defined as:· Nulliparous· Term (>37 weeks)· Singleton gestation· Vertex presentation· Live fetus
Elective primary c-sections do not need OB Department Chair review· Pt must be > 39
weeks· Risk/benefits of
trial of labor vs. primary c-section have been reviewed/explained
11/29/2016
19
CHS PC-02 Algorithm (page 2)
From Page 1
Discharge Home with F/U
Information
Once the patient is in labor
Does the Patient meet criteria for C-
Section?
If any one of these apply:-- NonReassuring FHR-- Failed Induction (see definition to left)-- Active Phase Arrest 6cm Dilated w/ ROM & No Cervical Change * > 4 Hrs of Adequate Ctx w/ IUPC > 200 MVUs * > 6Hrs of Inadequate Ctx-- Second Stage Arrest *3 Hrs in Nulliparous W/O Epidural *4Hrs in Nulliparous W Epidural
Unscheduled Admission
(Evaluate patient for admission criteria)Meets Admission Criteria
(Laboring, SROM, or Medical Reason)
Doesn’t meet Admission Criteria
Patient Delivers Vaginally
Pt will be in Denominator
Use Labor Support
Techniques, Monitor Pt and
Fetus Per Policy
No
Pt will be in Numerator and Denominator
Patient Delivers Via C-Section
Yes
“Failed Induction”
defined as:Failure to generate regular (e.g. every 3 min) contractions and cervical change after > 24 hours of oxytocin administration with AROM (if feasible).
PC-02 Algorithm
F:\IHI information\Perinatal Improvement Community\CHS Leadership Team\PC-02 project\algorithm\PC-02 Algorithm For Admission-Modified by PI vsd revised 3-3-14 (2).vsd
Data Collection Tool
11/29/2016
20
PC-02 Scorecard2015 (Baseline) Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Q1 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Q2 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Q3 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Q4 2014 YTD
PC-02 Rate
Expected PC-02 Rate (target goal) 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 21.7%
Expected PC-02 Rate (stretch goal) 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%PC-02 Rate #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Numerator 0 0 0 0 0
Denominator 0 0 0 0 0Number of vaginal deliveries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balancing Measures (PC-02 Population Only)Operative Deliveries
Rate of Vacuum Deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Number of Vacuum deliveries 0 0 0 0 0
Rate of Forceps Deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Forceps delivery 0 0 0 0 0
Rate of Vacuum and Forceps Used Together #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Vacuum and Forceps Used Together 0 0 0 0 0
3rd Degree LacerationsRate of 3rd degree lacerations with vaginal deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Number of 3rd degree lacerations 0 0 0 0 04th Degree Lacerations
Rate of 4th degree lacerations with vaginal deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Number of 4th degree lacerations 0 0 0 0 0
Shoulder DystociasRate of shoulder dystocias with vaginal deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Number of patients with Shoulder Dystocias 0 0 0 0 0Chorioamnionitis
Rate of chorioamnionitis with total deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Number of patients with chorioamnionitis 0 0 0 0 0
MeconiumRate of meconium with total deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Number of patients with meconium 0 0 0 0 0Postpartum Hemorrhage
Rate of OB Hemorrhage with total deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Number of patients with an OB Hemorrhage 0 0 0 0 0
Apgar <7 at 5 minutesRate of Apgars <7 at 5 minutes with total deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Number of patients with an Apgar <7 at 5 minutes 0 0 0 0 0
Unplanned Admission to the NICU/SCN 0.00%Rate of unplanned NICU admissions with total deliveries #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Number of patients with an unplanned NICU admission 0 0 0 0 0
Recommended