Hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care and tight control can save lives. Current ad-hoc clinical protocols require significant clinical effort and can often produce highly variable results. Thus, tight control remains elusive as there is not enough understanding of the relationship between control performance and protocol design, particularly with regard to how a given protocol is implemented.
Methods:
This article examines the role of human factors and how individuals relate to technological protocols in clinical settings. The study consists of an overall brief review that is used to create a first graphical representation of the impact of human factors in clinical medical protocol implementations. This initial framework is examined in the context of two similar, but different, case studies—the specialized relative insulin and nutrition tables glycemic control protocol and the TREAT system for antibiotic selection.
Results:
A graphical framework relating the human factors impact on medical protocol implementation is created. This framework describes the primary impacts on performance as resulting from clinical burden and protocol transparency. Their primary effect is on compliance with the protocol, which directly affects performance and outcome, particularly in long-term studies versus short pilot studies.
Summary:
Compliance is a key element in obtaining the best clinical outcome that a given protocol can provide. The issues that most affect compliance are quite often unrelated to the patient or treatment, but are a function of the protocol design and its ability to integrate (by its design) into a given clinical setting. A framework for examining these issues in design and in post-hoc assessment is therefore proposed and examined in two brief case studies.
Van den BergheGWilmerAHermansGMeerssemanWWoutersPJMilantsIVan WijngaerdenEBobbaersHBouillonR. Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med.2006;354 (5): 449–61.
2.
Van den BergheGWoutersPWeekersFVerwaestCBruyninckxFSchetzMVlasselaersDFerdinandePLauwersPBouillonR. Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med.2001;345 (19): 1359–67.
3.
KrinsleyJS. Effect of an intensive glucose management protocol on the mortality of critically ill adult patients. Mayo Clin Proc.2004;79 (8): 992–1000.
4.
KrinsleyJSJonesRL. Cost analysis of intensive glycemic control in critically ill adult patients. Chest.2006;129 (3): 644–50.
5.
Van den BergheGWoutersPJKestelootKHillemanDE. Analysis of healthcare resource utilization with intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med.2006, 34 (3): 612–616.
6.
ShulmanRFinneySJO'SullivanCGlynnePAGreeneR. Tight glycaemic control: a prospective observational study of a computerised decision-supported intensive insulin therapy protocol. Crit Care.2007;11 (4): R75.
7.
RoodEBosmanRJvan der SpoelJITaylorPZandstraDF. Use of a computerized guideline for glucose regulation in the intensive care unit improved both guideline adherence and glucose regulation. J Am Med Inform Assoc.2005;12 (2): 172–80.
8.
AragonD. Evaluation of nursing work effort and perceptions about blood glucose testing in tight glycemic control. Am J Crit Care.2006;15 (4): 370–7.
9.
MackenzieIIngleSZaidiSBuczaskiS. Tight glycaemic control: a survey of intensive care practice in large English hospitals. Intensive Care Med.2005;31 (8): 1136.
10.
SchultzMJSpronkPEMoeniralamHS. Tight glycaemic control: a survey of intensive care practice in the Netherlands. Intensive Care Med.2006;32 (4): 618–9.
11.
BlandDKFankhanelYLangfordELeeMLeeSWMaloneyCRogersMZimmermanG. Intensive versus modified conventional control of blood glucose level in medical intensive care patients: a pilot study. Am J Crit Care.2005;14 (5): 370–6.
12.
WaeschleRMoererOWahahaDNeumannPQuintelM. Intensive insulin therapy on ICU: comparison of two algorithms to control the blood glucose level. Intensive Care Med.2005;31 (S1): S203.
13.
Di NardoMMKorytkowskiMTSiminerioLS. The importance of normoglycemia in critically ill patients. Crit Care Nurs Q.2004;27 (2): 126–34.
14.
KawamotoKHoulihanCABalasEALobachDF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ.2005;330 (7494): 765.
15.
GargAXAdhikariNKMcDonaldHRosas-ArellanoMPDevereauxPJBeyeneJSamJHaynesRB. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA.2005;293 (10): 1223–38.
16.
HaynesRBYaoXDeganiAKripalaniSGargAMcDonaldHP. Interventions to enhance medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2005(4):CD000011.
17.
SinuffTCookDGiacominiMHeylandDDodekP. Facilitating clinician adherence to guidelines in the intensive care unit: a multicenter, qualitative study. Crit Care Med.2007;35 (9): 2083–9.
18.
CarayonPGursesAP. A human factors engineering conceptual framework of nursing workload and patient safety in intensive care units. Intensive Crit Care Nurs.2005;21 (5): 284–301.
19.
GursesAPCarayonP. Performance obstacles of intensive care nurses. Nurs Res.2007;56 (3): 185–94.
20.
BuonocoreD. Leadership in action: creating a change in practice. AACN Clin Issues.2004;15 (2): 170–81.
21.
RazaviRChanYAfifiyanFNLiuXJWanXYanthaJTsuiHTangLTsaiSSantamariaPDriverJPSerrezeDSalterMWDoschHM. TRPV1+ sensory neurons control beta cell stress and islet inflammation in autoimmune diabetes. Cell.2006;127 (6): 1123–35.
22.
TangZWeavindLMazabobJThomasEJChu-WeiningerMYJohnsonTR. Workflow in intensive care unit remote monitoring: a time-and-motion study. Crit Care Med.2007;35 (9): 2057–63.
23.
ChengCHGoldsteinMKGellerELevittRE. The effects of CPOE on ICU workflow: an observational study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc.2003: 150–4.
24.
AliNAMekhjianHSKuehnPLBentleyTDKumarRFerketichAKHoffmannSP. Specificity of computerized physician order entry has a significant effect on the efficiency of workflow for critically ill patients. Crit Care Med.2005;33 (1): 110–4.
25.
McLaughlinTAbbasiFLamendolaCReavenG. Heterogeneity in the prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus in obese individuals: effect of differences in insulin sensitivity. Arch Intern Med.2007;167 (7): 642–8.
26.
BlondeL. Current challenges in diabetes management. Clin Cornerstone.2005;7Suppl 3: S6–17.
27.
AngerKESzumitaPM. Barriers to glucose control in the intensive care unit. Pharmacotherapy.2006;26 (2): 214–28.
28.
OsburneRCCookCBStocktonLBairdMHarmonVKeddoAPoundsTLoweyLReidJMcGowanKADavidsonPC. Improving hyperglycemia management in the intensive care unit: preliminary report of a nurse-driven quality improvement project using a redesigned insulin infusion algorithm. Diabetes Educ.2006;32 (3): 394–403.
29.
BerenholtzSMMilanovichSFairclothAProwDTEarsingKLipsettPDormanTPronovostPJ. Improving care for the ventilated patient. Jt Comm J Qual Saf.2004;30 (4): 195–204.
30.
KirkADe FeoP. Strategies to enhance compliance to physical activity for patients with insulin resistance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.2007;32 (3): 549–56.
31.
LeeWCBaluSCobdenDJoshiAVPashosCL. Prevalence and economic consequences of medication adherence in diabetes: a systematic literature review. Manag Care Interface.2006;19 (7): 31–41.
32.
DavidsonJ. Strategies for improving glycemic control: effective use of glucose monitoring. Am J Med.2005;118 (Suppl 9A): 27S–32S.
33.
ChaseJGShawGMLotzTLeCompteAWongJLinJLonerganTWillacyMHannCE. Model-based insulin and nutrition administration for tight glycaemic control in critical care. Curr Drug Deliv.2007;4 (4): 283–96.
34.
LonerganTCompteALWillacyMChaseJGShawGMHannCELotzTLinJWongXW. A pilot study of the SPRINT protocol for tight glycemic control in critically ill patients. Diabetes Technol Ther.2006;8 (4): 449–62.
35.
ShawGMChaseJGWongJLinJLotzTLe CompteAJLonerganTRWillacyMBHannCE. Rethinking glycaemic control in critical illness—from concept to clinical practice change. Crit Care Resusc.2006;8 (2): 90–9.
36.
RobertsonRP. Islet transplantation as a treatment for diabetes– a work in progress. N Engl J Med.2004;350 (7): 694–705.
37.
LeiboviciLGitelmanVYehezkelliYPoznanskiOMiloGPaulMEin-DorP. Improving empirical antibiotic treatment: prospective, nonintervention testing of a decision support system. J Intern Med.1997;242 (5): 395–400.
38.
WongXWChaseJGShawGMHannCELotzTLinJSingh-LevettIHollingsworthLJWongOSAndreassenS. Model predictive glycaemic regulation in critical illness using insulin and nutrition input: a pilot study. Med Eng Phys.2006;28 (7): 665–81.
39.
WongXWSingh-LevettIHollingsworthLJShawGMHannCELotzTLinJWongOSChaseJG. A novel, model-based insulin and nutrition delivery controller for glycemic regulation in critically ill patients. Diabetes Technol Ther.2006;8 (2): 174–90.
40.
LonerganTLeCompteAWillacyMChaseJGShawGMWongXWLotzTLinJHannCE. A simple insulin-nutrition protocol for tight glycemic control in critical illness: development and protocol comparison. Diabetes Technol Ther.2006;8 (2): 191–206.
41.
ChaseJGShawGM. Is there more to glycaemic control than meets the eye?Crit Care.2007;11 (4): 160.
42.
Van den BergheGWilmerAMilantsIWoutersPJBouckaertBBruyninckxFBouillonRSchetzM. Intensive insulin therapy in mixed medical/surgical intensive care units: benefit versus harm. Diabetes.2006;55 (11): 3151–9.
43.
NemethCO'ConnorMKlockPACookR. Mapping cognitive work: the way out of healthcare IT system failures. AMIA Annu Symp Proc.2005: 560–4.
44.
NemethCCookRO'ConnorMKlockP. Using cognitive artifacts to understand distributed cognition. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum.2004;34 (6): 726–35.
