Advertisment Fosfocin
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine
An open access publication of ISCCM™ 
 
Users online: 312 
     Home | Login 
  About Current Issue Archive Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact  
  NAVIGATE Here 
  Search
 
  
 RESOURCE Links
   Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (240 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1130    
    Printed18    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded242    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
 Table of Contents    
EDITORIAL
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 265-266

Benchmarking critical care processes: Reaching standards of excellence!


Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008, India

Date of Web Publication14-May-2014

Correspondence Address:
Ashu Sara Mathai
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.132462

Rights and Permissions




How to cite this article:
Mathai AS. Benchmarking critical care processes: Reaching standards of excellence!. Indian J Crit Care Med 2014;18:265-6

How to cite this URL:
Mathai AS. Benchmarking critical care processes: Reaching standards of excellence!. Indian J Crit Care Med [serial online] 2014 [cited 2018 Apr 21];18:265-6. Available from: http://www.ijccm.org/text.asp?2014/18/5/265/132462


Benchmarking is the process of identifying the highest standards of excellence for products, services, or processes, and then making the improvements necessary to reach those standards, commonly referred to as "best practices". [1] Thus, the concept of benchmarking which is basically modeled on the business industry helps an organization to identify the gap between where it actually is, and where it would like to be. This has proven to increase productivity, enhance learning, potentiate growth, and facilitate continuous improvement of standards. The Xerox Company introduced this revolutionary concept in the late 1980s when its market share in copiers reduced sharplyfrom 86% to only 17%. [1] The company was the first to "benchmark" by first assessing its own internal processes and following it up by studying its competitors, eventually resulting in a dramatic turnaround of its profits. [2] In the areas of health care too, attempts have been made to benchmark both the processes of health care delivery and patient outcomes, especially in areas such as cardiovascular medicine, transfusion programs, adolescent health, pain management, etc. [3] These processes have been applied to the intensive care unit (ICU) as well. Gershengorn and colleagues argue that among the key lessons ICU physicians can learn from the business world; benchmarking is a vital component as comparison with peer units or institutions is essential to identifying areas of strength and weakness. [4]

In this issue of the Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, Dr Kapadia and coworkers [5] have sought to benchmark the rates of tracheal tube displacements within their unit at <1% per patient and at <0.5% per tracheal tube day, and to sustain these targets, over a 10-year period. After measuring their own performance over the preceding 7-year period, the above targets were set and specific programs and actions were implemented to maintain the benchmarked target. For the successful benchmarking of any process, it is essential to identify the critical success factors, i.e., those factors on which the success of the benchmarked target will depend on. Kapadia and colleagues have ensured the use of standard procedures for securing endotracheal tubes; encouraged active communication between all health care workers, as well as between patients and their health care providers; developed guidelines to manage pain, anxiety, and delirium; promoted the use of sedation according to target sedation scores; standardized the use of physical restraints, including the preferential use of mittens in agitated patients; and used appropriate humidification techniques, besides ensuring the availability of adequate nursing personnel to take care of intubated patients in the unit. Tying down patients, as rightly pointed out by the authors, is not only inhumane and unjustified most of the time, but can even lead to increased delirium and posttraumatic stress disorder in patients. In fact, some studies have reported that forcefully restraining patients actually increases the risk of unplanned extubations. [6] By applying concise definitions, clear stratification of airway incidents and reliable surveillance techniques, Kapadia and colleagues [5] ensure accurate reporting and collectionof data. Reporting of all incidents, however insignificant they may be thought to be, and a culture of non-retribution and openness is essential to the success of such programs. Changes occur when the process has started and needs the constant support of individuals committed to the process and continuously striving to make it better. It is also laudable to note that every incident reported was recorded immediately by a designated person and discussed with the consultant in charge within the following 12-24 hours to ascertain the cause and classify the incident appropriately. Using these principles, the benchmarked rates were sustained over a 10-year period, a remarkable feat in any ICU. While such a process of internal benchmarking helps to determine the internal performance standards of the unit, the identified best internal procedures may also be utilized and adopted in other areas of the hospital, thereby benefiting the larger organization. Later, these targets may be even used as a baseline for external benchmarking, something that the authors should perhaps consider as the next step in this continuing process of growth and improvement.

This study by Kapadia et al. [5] should provide an impetus for clinicians to develop their own continuous quality improvement programs. Often forays into domains of quality control may be perceived as a lot of "hard work". There may also be fears of increased vulnerability to the misuse of data by the media, health insurance companies, and even boards of control, especially when the benchmarked targets are not met. Moreover, unjustified condemnation, when this happens, can lead to staff demotivation and thus backfire in respect to the goal of quality improvement. Staff motivation and a culture of openness and encouragement can offset most of these unfounded fears and the payoffs have been more than substantial for those willing to take up the challenge. Beyond the direct effects of benchmarking, the improved process and climate that results from the whole process improves the whole organization. [7]
"If you want to maintain the status quo, then don't benchmark. If you want to remain where you are, secure in the knowledge that you are doing the best that you can, don't benchmark. If reality checks are not your cup of tea, don't benchmark. Benchmarking will open an organization to change, and to humility. Benchmarking provides the stones for building a path toward competitive excellence and long run success."(McNair and Leibfried, 1992). [8]

 
  References Top

1.Elmuti D, Kathawala Y. An overview of benchmarking process: A tool for continuous improvement and competitive advantage. Benchmarking Qual Manag Technol 1997;4:229-43.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Camp RC. Learning from the best leads to superior performance. J Bus Strategy 1992;13:3-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Uçkay I, Ahmed QA, Sax H, Pittet D. Ventilator-associated pneumonia as a quality indicator for patient safety? Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:557-63.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Gershengorn HB, Kocher R, Factor P. Management strategies to effect change in intensive care units: Lessons from the world of business. Part I. Targeting quality improvement initiatives. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11:264-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Kapadia FN, Tekawade PC, Nath SS,Pachpute SS, Saverkar SS, Bhise RA et al. A prolonged observational study of tracheal tube displacement in intensive care unit: Benchmarking an incidence <0.5-1% in a general medical-surgical adult intensive care unit. Ind J of Crit Care Med 2014;18:273-277.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.da Silva PS, Fonseca MC. Unplanned endotracheal extubations in the intensive care unit: Systematic review, critical appraisal, and evidence-based recommendations. Anesth Analg 2012;114:1003-14.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Omachonu VK, Ross JE. Principles of total quality. 3 rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004. p. 512.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.McNair CJ, Leibfried KH. Benchmarking: A tool for continuous improvement. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo/Ozliver Wight Publ; 1992.  Back to cited text no. 8
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Online since 7th April '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow