A quality improvement project: Reducing bloodstream infection by improving adherence to the care bundle of peripheral vascular catheters at the COVID-19 treatment centre.

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, bloodstream infection (BSI) rates were substantially rising in Sungai Buloh Hospital (HSB). It is believed that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an adverse impact on BSI incidence caused by contaminated periphery vascular catheters (PVCs). The study's objective is to reduce the BSI rates in HSB by improving adherence to the PVC care bundle via the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quality improvement (QI) project was employed over four months, from June to September 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic in HSB. All adults hospitalised for COVID-19 with intravenous lines were subjected to data collection. A baseline audit was conducted to study BSI incidence from April to May 2021. Implementation was carried out by PDSA cycles and data on BSI rates per 100 admissions was described using a monthly run chart. RESULTS: At baseline, the BSI rate per 100 admissions was 5.44 before implementing our QI project. Initial changes via PDSA cycles did not bring significant improvements to BSI rates and a rising trend in BSI rates was observed after two PDSA cycles. Further audits identified the problem of noncompliance with the practice of aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT) and a lack of effective leadership in implementing the PVC care bundle. The third PDSA cycle focused on adopting practical leadership skills among senior clinicians to ensure compliance with the prevention bundle and to encourage the use of ultrasound guidance for difficult line insertion. After the third PDSA cycle, the BSI rate per 100 admissions was reduced from 6.41 to 4.34 (p < 0.05). The BSI rates continued to decline down the line for another five months. CONCLUSION: Through QI initiatives, the risk of BSI can be significantly reduced.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.