Abstract
Purpose of Review
The field of neurocritical care (NCC) has grown such that there is now a substantial body of literature on quality improvement specific to NCC. This review will discuss the development of this literature over time and highlight current best practices with practical tips for providers.
Recent Findings
There is tremendous variability in patient care models for NCC patients, despite evidence showing that certain structural elements are associated with better outcomes. There now also exist evidence-based recommendations for neurocritical care unit (NCCU) structure and processes, as well as NCC-specific performance measure (PM) sets; however, awareness of these is variable among care providers. The evidence-based literature on NCC structure, staffing, training, standardized order sets and bundles, transitions of care including handoff, prevention of bounce backs, bed flow optimization, and inter-hospital transfers is growing and offers many examples of successful performance improvement initiatives in NCCUs.
Summary
NCC providers care for patients with life-threatening conditions like intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhages, ischemic stroke, and traumatic brain injury, which are associated with high morbidity, complexity of treatment, and cost. Quality improvement initiatives have been successful in improving many aspects of NCC patient care, and NCC providers should continue to update and standardize their practices with consideration of this data. More research is needed to continue to identify high-risk and high-cost NCCU structures and processes and strategies to optimize them, validate current NCC PMs, and encourage clinical adoption of those that prove to be associated with improved outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Neurocritical care (NCC) is a multidisciplinary subspecialty at the crossroads of neurology, neurosurgery, and critical care that is dedicated to the treatment of patients who are critically ill with life-threatening neurologic and neurosurgical diseases. It has matured as a distinct subspecialty over the past two decades, evidenced by the formation of dedicated neuro-ICUs (NCCUs) to take care of its target population, the designation of neurointensivists and nurses specially trained in NCC, the formation of its international society (the Neurocritical Care Society, NCS) in 2002, the creation of a distinct board certification, neurocritical care fellowship through the United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) in 2005 and through Accreditation Council For Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2020, unique clinical and translational research networks, and the publication of clinical guidelines and performance measures (PMs) for neurocritical care pathologies.
Our understanding of implementation science and quality improvement (QI) has simultaneously advanced via research—e.g., the Institute of Medicine (IOM)’s “Crossing the Quality Chasm” [1] and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s “Making Healthcare Safer,” which shed light on the most common threats to patient safety [2]—and national initiatives like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)’s Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. In “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” the IOM established six domains of health care quality—safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable; this analytical framework has been widely adopted in QI programs and PM development [3]. Currently, CMS defines quality improvement as “the framework used to systematically improve care. Quality improvement seeks to standardize processes and structure to reduce variation, achieve predictable results, and improve outcomes for patients, healthcare systems, and organizations. The structure includes technology, culture, leadership, and physical capital; the process includes knowledge capital (e.g., standard operating procedures) or human capital (e.g., education and training) [4].”
Subspecialties like stroke and critical care have had a head start in QI research; over the last two decades, stroke has seen a plethora of disease-specific guidelines [5–7] and certifications from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) and The Joint Commission (TJC) [8] that support evidence-based structures and processes that improve stroke patient outcomes [9] and mature databases and performance improvement programs, including measure sets, like the AHA/ASA’s Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Program [10]. There has similarly been advancement in critical care QI with evidence for improved outcomes with intensivist-led ICU staffing [11] and structure models [12] and processes like early goal-directed therapy for sepsis and daily spontaneous breathing trials, published in guidelines and promoted in toolkits like the ICU Liberation Bundle from the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) [13].
Over the same timeframe, the field of NCC has matured from its initial focus on the benefits of subspecialty NCC providers on NCC patient outcomes [14, 15]. NCC QI-related publications have grown to include detailed NCCU structure recommendations by the NCS [16], evidence-based NCC-specific guidelines [17•, 18–25] performance measure sets from organizations like the NCS and AHA, and a variety of publications investigating optimal NCCU structure, staffing, education, and process improvement. Additionally, the NCS created its Quality Committee in 2016, for further advancement of NCC QI initiatives and research.
This narrative review will provide an overview of the NCC QI literature and highlight current best practices.
Current State
The PRINCE study was the first to shed light on how neurocritical care is delivered across the globe; a point prevalence study of 257 centers from 47 countries showed that the most common diagnoses of patients admitted to neurocritical care units (NCCUs) include acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, neuromuscular weakness, status epilepticus, and hypoxic-ischemic injury [26•] and that the specialty of the provider caring for these patients varies widely. In the USA, 21% of providers caring for NCC patients on the day of the study identified their specialty as NCC; 38% were pulmonary critical care medicine (PCCM), 16% anesthesia critical care (ACC), 5% surgical critical care (SCC), 2.5% neurosurgery, and 17% other. Depending on the geographic area, one non-intensivist was the primary provider caring for 3 to 10 patients. The NCCUs in the study reported the use of disease-specific treatment protocols 40–90% of the time, depending on the pathology [26•, 27•]. Given the high morbidity and cost associated with these conditions, a large number of evidence-based guidelines available for them, and the diversity of providers caring for them, it is reasonable to assume that QI techniques, and the standardization and attention to outcomes they bring, could play a significant role in optimizing NCC patient care.
The current state of QI efforts in NCCUs was largely unknown until a survey published by Lele et al. in 2020 showed that of 225 NCS respondents, a dedicated NCC QI program was reported by 45%, and the presence of dedicated NCC QI personnel by 44%, despite a dedicated hospital-wide QI program being reported by 88% [28]. The most self-reported barrier to QI efforts was insufficient resources from the hospital or academic departments. Awareness of NCC-specific PMs among respondents was 88% for comprehensive stroke (CSTK), 57% for Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP), and 54% for the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Inpatient and Emergent Neurology Measure Set [28]. Since then, the NCS Quality Measurement Set was published in 2019; although we do not know the level of awareness of these in the NCC community, the data indicate that there is room to increase awareness of existing NCC PMs and expand NCC QI resources.
Structure
This variability in organizational structures and patient care models, as well as geographic variation in access to care, has the potential to exacerbate health disparities [29]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that organizational factors such as NCC team expertise, and a center’s volume and experience treating certain NCC conditions, influence the quality of care delivered. In a study by Suarez et al. the introduction of an NCC team led by a neurointensivist was associated with a significant reduction in mortality and length of stay (LOS) [15]. Kramer et al. performed a systematic review of NCC patient care models and found lower mortality and improved neurologic outcomes in specialty NCCUs [30]. Additional benefits of neurointensivist-led teams include cost savings [30, 31] and decreased need for ventriculoperitoneal shunts in SAH patients [32].
The relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome has also been demonstrated in several NCC conditions. For example, Connolly et al. reported that for SAH, low-volume centers (treating < 10 cases per year) had worse outcomes compared to high-volume centers (treating > 35 cases per year) [7]. Diringer et al. demonstrated that ICH admission to centers with neurosurgical and NCC services with relatively high volumes of ICH cases was associated with increased survival [33]. High-volume (versus low-volume) ischemic stroke thrombectomy centers have also been associated with better survival and functional outcomes [34]. Given these volume-outcome associations, TJC includes the presence of an NCCU as part of the infrastructure necessary to achieve designation as a comprehensive stroke center [35]. For low-volume hospitals, the American Stroke Association recommends processes be in place to facilitate the transfer of stroke patients to experienced high-volume centers with neurosurgical and NCC capabilities when needed [36••]. For traumatic brain injury (TBI), Grieve et al. found that early transfer of TBI patients to a specialist neuroscience center was associated with reduced mortality and higher quality of life compared to late or no transfer and that management of patients in a dedicated NCCU versus general ICU was likely more cost-effective [37].
As such, several NCC disease conditions may benefit from care in a dedicated NCCU due to illness severity and the need for highly specialized resources. Some of these disease conditions include (but are not limited to):
-
Large hemispheric and cerebellar strokes that may require hemicraniectomy or suboccipital craniectomy
-
Severe aneurysmal SAH and ICH requiring external ventricular drain (EVD), decompression or clot evacuation, and/or aneurysm coil embolization or clip ligation
-
Refractory status epilepticus requiring continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring
-
Severe TBI requiring intracranial pressure monitoring, intracranial hypertension management, and/or decompression
Because getting NCC patients to the right level of care is now recommended in certain circumstances, it is important to design systems that recognize the capabilities of individual institutions and that leverage local resources and clinical networks to get patients the best care possible. For acute stroke, stroke program certification standards—i.e., TJC’s Comprehensive, Thrombectomy-Capable and Primary Stroke Center designations—provide a framework for ensuring care is delivered in the best environment, as well as establish structural benchmarks that promote data-driven performance improvement [38]. The ASA’s 2019 “Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care” details how EMS and hospitals should use the TJC designations to triage stroke patients from the field and for hospital-to-hospital transfer to ensure stroke patients get to the best care as fast as possible [36••]. Recognizing a need for a similar framework for other NCC disease conditions, the NCS published “Standards for Neurologic Critical Care Units” in 2018 [39]. These standards represent best practice structural measures; categorize NCCUs as level I, II, or III based on level of care capability; and describe the key personnel, processes, and infrastructure required for each:
-
LeveI I NCCUs are equipped to deliver comprehensive services for the care of the most complex patients, including advanced monitoring, surgical and medical therapies, fellowship-trained neurointensivists, and physician and APP training capability.
-
Level II NCCUs are those with the capacity to deliver comprehensive neurocritical care delivery, though may not be equipped with the same degree of advanced monitoring or dedicated neurocritical care fellowship-trained personnel as compared to a Level I NCCU.
-
Level III NCCUs are resourced to evaluate and stabilize neurological emergencies and facilitate transfer to level I and II centers.
The NCS NCCU standards provide detailed recommendations on interprofessional care and teamwork, quality and safety infrastructure and processes, clinical operations and administration, equipment, and education and training. It is recommended that an interprofessional team in a level I or II NCCU include neurointensivists, neurosciences nurses, advanced practice providers and/or resident and fellow trainees, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, dieticians, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, and others depending upon local resources. A level I NCCU should have a leadership structure consisting of an NCC fellowship-trained medical director, a nurse manager, and a hospital administrative leader. A level I NCCU should also have a dedicated clinical operations committee that regularly liaises with hospital administration, as well as established practices for reviewing PMs to inform QI initiatives. Protocols and care pathways should be developed in collaboration with stakeholders (such as neurosurgery, neurology, stroke, emergency department, and nursing) and be informed by evidence, guideline recommendations, or PMs (often endorsed by medical societies or governmental agencies, i.e., CMS and AHRQ). Depending on the level of NCCU and services provided, NCC-specific equipment may include electroencephalography (EEG), external ventricular drains (EVDs), intracranial pressure monitors, transcranial dopplers, other multimodal monitoring equipment, and targeted temperature management devices.
The development of a culture of safety is also central to achieving high reliability of care within the NCCU. Leadership supporting adverse event reporting may be helpful in promoting a just culture within the NCCU. Likewise, the incorporation of closed-loop communication strategies may be helpful in flattening professional hierarchies, improving communication, and creating a safe non-retaliatory environment in which staff feels supported in sharing concerns [41].
Formal QI education and training are now widely available and can help advance a QI program. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Open School provides free online teaching modules utilizing the improvement method framework. Likewise, online training in Lean Six Sigma methodology is available, which focuses on improving value through waste reduction and workflow optimization. In addition, an increasing number of health organizations now offer programs to medical staff and trainees, embedding core QI concepts within the context of local systems.
In the development of an NCC QI program, a structured approach may be helpful. Elements to consider (Table 1) include defining priorities, structure and leadership, information technology, resource allocation, data collection and analysis, and data dissemination.
Processes
Standardizing processes of care, including knowledge through operating procedures and personnel through education and training, has long been shown to improve ICU care as highlighted below. In general critical care, the SCCM’s “ICU Liberation Campaign” promotes a bundle of evidence-based strategies including spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early mobility to reduce harm from common ICU conditions like pain, delirium, and sedation [42]. Implementation of the ICU Liberation Bundle has been associated with a 72% decrease in next-day mechanical ventilation, 68% reduction in in-hospital death within 7 days, 46% decrease in ICU readmissions, 40% decrease in next-day delirium, and 36% decrease in the likelihood of being discharged to a nursing home and rehab facility [43••]. In the NCCU, these interventions offer similar benefits but should be adapted to the NCC patient population. For example, daily sedation holds and spontaneous breathing trials may not be advisable for patients with elevated intracranial pressure [44], and delirium screening/treatment pathways may need to be adapted in NCC patients as neurologic pathologies such as vasospasm can mimic delirium.
Bundles for prevention of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) such as catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), catheter-associated line infections (CLABSIs), and ventilator-associated events (VAEs) have also been a focus of research since they lead to excess morbidity, mortality, and resource consumption, and immobilized, ventilator-dependent ICU patients have a high risk of HAIs. NCC patients additionally have nervous system dysfunction making them subject to aspiration, urinary retention, frequent transports for procedures and radiologic exams, etc., which can make them even more vulnerable to HAIs. One study aimed at reducing HAIs in the NCCU after finding that incidence remained high despite routine preventative bundles. They created additional interventions including (a) reviewing urinary catheter use on daily rounds, continuously questioning the ongoing need for a catheter; (b) re-educating personnel in insertion and maintenance; and (c) placing a mobile CT in the NCCU since they found correlations between frequency of transport for brain imaging and respiratory and urinary infections. Over 18 months, VAEs decreased by 48%, urinary catheter use by 46%, CAUTIs from 11/1000 catheter days to 6.2, total HAIs by 53%, ICU LOS by 1.5 days, and risk-adjusted mortality by 11%. Key drivers were decreased urinary catheter use and decreased transport for imaging [45].
Prevention of ventriculostomy-related infections (VRIs) in patients with EVDs is an issue particular to NCCUs and has been widely published. Overall the literature demonstrates that implementation of a comprehensive EVD bundle with stakeholder input that emphasizes aseptic technique throughout the EVDs lifespan can significantly reduce VRI rates and that rates approaching 0 are possible [46]. The NCS guideline on EVD management recommends the use of an EVD bundle that “includes aseptic insertion, limits manipulation of the closed system, and standardizes dressings and weaning [23].” Although there are publications on the prevention of other NCCU-specific infections, like craniotomy site infections and meningitis after TBI, the literature there is less robust [46].
Another way of standardizing processes of care is through the use of standardized pathology-specific order sets, which are a class I recommendation from the AHA for stroke patients [47••] as they improve adherence to best practices [48]. For TBI, McCredie et al. showed that protocolized care pathways reduce risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (OR 0.77, p = 0.009) [49]. Order sets may also be targeted to improve specific aspects of care; for example, one study found that the implementation of an electronic order set for anticoagulant reversal cut the time to administration of reversal agent by almost half, resulting in significantly more accurate dosing (29.4 vs. 92.9%; p < 0.01) and reduction in time to INR testing from 164 to 85 min (p = 0.001) [50].
Bedside rounding tools and standardized handoffs have also been shown to improve information transfer and may influence patient, provider, and organizational outcomes [50, 51]. In 2010, TJC established standards for healthcare provider handoff that mandate the opportunity for discussion between the giver and receiver of information [50–52], and ACGME required that medical training programs “must design, implement, and institutionalize structured handover processes to ensure the continuity of care and patient safety [53].” Specifically in the NCCU, Gunter et al. [54] describe implementing an electronic multidisciplinary rounding tool to facilitate team communication, which improved nursing shift change handoff. Another prospective assessment that introduced a standardized NCC provider handoff demonstrated an improved clinical information exchange [55]. Multiple studies have examined postoperative neurosurgical handoff in the NCCU; one introduced a structured handoff using the IPASS format. Direct observations before and after demonstrated improved communication of airway concerns (47.1% vs. 92.3%, p < 0.001), hemodynamic concerns (70.6% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.001), intraoperative events (52.9% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), neurological exam (76.5% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), vital sign goals (70.6% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), and required postoperative studies (76.5% vs. 100%, p < 0.001) [56•]. Before and after surveys demonstrated significantly improved perceptions of handoffs as organized, efficient, comprehensive, and safe, with a mean handoff time of 4.4 min [56•].
NCCU patients are vulnerable to rapid returns to the ICU after transfer to a floor service (“bouncing back”). As these patients may experience increased mortality and longer hospital stays, multiple studies have focused on bounceback prevention. One center found that unplanned transfers to the NCCU were common and associated with high mortality (17%) [57]. At another institution, the bounceback rate within 48 h of NCCU downgrade was 4.7%, with the most common causes for bounceback being a respiratory failure and sepsis/hypotension; this rate decreased to 3.6% after implementation of an intervention where patients were identified as “high risk” or “low risk” for a bounceback, and “high risk” patients underwent enhanced handoff including interdisciplinary communication and rapid assessment [58]. Another study implementing a transfer checklist for patients transferring out of the NCCU (including ICU course, action items, and a systems-based checklist) demonstrated significantly decreased LOS (8.6 vs. 5.4 days, p = 0.003), low ICU readmission rate, improved provider perceptions of safety, and decreased time spent executing the transfer [59•].
Inter-hospital transfers (IHT) have been the subject of many studies due to their complexity and financial impact. One prospective study of an intervention to improve the transfer process for nontraumatic ICH and SAH patients (including clinical guideline dissemination, transfer process redesign, electronic patient arrival notification, shared electronic imaging, and EHR improvements) found significant improvements in the emergency department (ED) boarding time (223 min pre-intervention vs. 93 post-intervention, p = 0.001), and ED LOS (300 vs. 150 min, p ≤ 0.0001) [60•]. Another group used failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to optimize IHT for ICH patients admitted to the NCCU and was able to reduce ED LOS from 300 to 149 min (p < 0.01) [61•]. One institution aiming to increase NCCU transfer volume by optimizing bed utilization evaluated the impact of a Reserved Bed Pilot Program; they found reserving NCCU beds for NCC patients, and using non-NCCU beds for other ICU overflows, significantly increased neurosciences transfer volume (13%) and decreased declines due to capacity (58%) [62•].
QI strategies for other NCCU processes, such as the transition to comfort care [31], clinical documentation strategies to optimize risk-adjusted outcomes [63], palliative care consultation [63, 64], and DVT chemoprophylaxis [65], have also been published.
Performance Measures
There are numerous critical care-specific PMs that may be tracked by institutions. One example is hand hygiene, which significantly reduces HAI transmission [66], and as such is often enforced hospital-wide. In a review of 3014 citations, Berenholtz et al. identified the following: six measures associated with patient outcomes (ICU mortality, ICU LOS > 7 days, average ICU LOS, average days on mechanical ventilation, suboptimal pain management, and patient/family satisfaction), six process measures (effective pain assessment, appropriate blood transfusion use, prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, appropriate sedation, peptic ulcer prophylaxis, and deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis), four access measures (rate of delayed admissions, rate of delayed discharges, canceled surgical cases, and ED bypass hours), and 3 complication measures (rate of unplanned ICU readmission, rate of CLABSI, and rate of resistant infections) [67]. Other general critical care PMs include rates of HAIs [68] such as CLABSI, CAUTI, surgical site infections (SSI), and ventilator-associated events (VAE), 30-day mortality [69], mortality index (observed/expected ratio) [70], in-hospital falls [71], adherence to daily rounding checklist [28], percentage of point-of-care glucose values > 180 mg/dl, ICU LOS, head-of-bed elevation, lung-protective ventilation, early and adequate antibiotic therapy, and early enteral nutrition [72].
The subspecialty nature of neurocritical care and its growing body of evidence-based practices has prompted the creation of NCC-specific PMs: stroke measures from TJC and the AHA/ASA, inpatient and emergency neurology measures from the AAN, NCC measures from the NCS, and TBI measures from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Table 2 shows the current published PM sets relevant to NCC patients [73, 74••, 75–77].
Optimally, PMs are associated with patient outcomes and can be used to improve them. One of the earliest examples of this in critical care is utilizing a pre-procedure checklist to reduce CLABSI [78]. After first being tested at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, its use became widespread across hospitals in the USA [79] and is now a PM reportable to CMS [80]. According to the AHRQ’s national scorecard on Hospital-Acquired Conditions (2014–2017), patient care with associated PMs improved in the year 2017 compared to 2014: 37% fewer Clostridium difficile infections, 17% fewer venous thromboembolism cases, 13% fewer VAPs, 6% fewer CLABSIs, and 5% fewer CAUTIs and falls in hospitals, attributed to tracking these PMs [71]. Among the NCC measures, hospitals that adopted the GWTG measures significantly decreased mortality within 6 months and at 1 year (HR 0.89, p = 0.001; HR 0.92, p = 0.0005) and increased discharges home at 1 year (HR 1.06, p = 0.06) compared to those that did not [81]. Another study looking at stroke patients receiving thrombectomy directly admitted (DA) versus secondarily transferred (ST) from a primary stroke center found that DA patients achieved good outcomes significantly more than ST patients (42.2% vs. 30.9%, p < 0.001), and median discharge mRS was lower 3 vs. 4, p < 0.001) [82•]. Although none of the listed NCC measures are currently reportable to CMS, it seems probable that patient care would be positively impacted if those NCC PMs that prove to be robust in improving outcomes were adopted by hospitals and CMS in the future.
Tracking a large number of PMs can be difficult; a PM dashboard can be helpful in visually organizing and monitoring the progress of QI initiatives [83–85]. Important steps in creating a PM dashboard are determining the type of dashboard and defining its purpose, assembling the team, writing objectives, establishing PMs to include, setting PM benchmarks, defining each PMs specifications, developing a data collection plan [86], determining how the dashboard will be displayed, establishing a dissemination plan [87], developing a plan to review the dashboard and act on the findings, gathering baseline data, determining a pilot period, and monitoring and continuing to explore new PMs to include [85]. Quality tools commonly used in dashboards include run charts, control charts, bar graphs, or pie charts [86].
Future Directions
The field of neurocritical care has made tremendous strides over the last few decades, and the body of evidence for NCC quality improvement has become robust enough to merit the publication of quality measurement sets and NCCU structure recommendations, as well as documents multiple QI initiatives that have demonstrably improved care at various institutions. More research is needed to continue to identify NCCU structures and processes associated with the highest risks and costs and strategies to optimize them. Because a diversity of providers and care models are responsible for the care of these patients, NCC providers should continue to update and standardize their practice in light of the current NCC QI literature and consider creating or modifying their own NCC QI programs with dashboards using published NCC PMs. More study is needed to validate the measures in these PM sets, encourage the clinical adoption of those that prove associated with outcomes, and codify them via certifications or awards from national organizations and reimbursement strategies by healthcare payers.
Abbreviations
- QI:
-
Quality improvement
- IT:
-
Information technology
- EHR:
-
Electronic health records
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 2014. https://doi.org/10.17226/10027
Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Markowitz AJ. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evid Rep Technol Assess i–x, 2001;1–668.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Six Domains of Health Care Quality. Content last reviewed November 2018. https://www.ahrq.gov/talkingquality/measures/six-domains.html. Accessed 22 Apr 2022
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Quality Measurement and Quality Improvement. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/MMS/Quality-Measure-and-Quality-Improvement. Accessed 19 Apr 2022.
Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, et al. 2021 Guideline for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2021;52:e364–467.
Hemphill JC 3rd, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2015;46:2032–2060.
Connolly ES Jr, Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/american Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43:1711–37.
The Joint Commission. Comprehensive Stroke Center. Copyright 2022. https://www.jointcommission.org/accreditation-and-certification/certification/certifications-by-setting/hospital-certifications/stroke-certification/advanced-stroke/comprehensive-stroke-center/. Accessed 20 Apr 2022.
Shah S, Liang L, Kosinski A, et al. Safety and Outcomes of Intravenous tPA in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With Prior Stroke Within 3 Months: Findings From Get With The Guidelines-Stroke. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13: e006031.
American Heart Association. Get With The Guidelines® - Stroke Overview. Copyright 2022. https://www.heart.org/en/professional/quality-improvement/get-with-the-guidelines/get-with-the-guidelines-stroke/get-with-the-guidelines-stroke-overview. Accessed 19 Apr 2022.
Chelluri LP. Goals of Care: Role of Physicians in the ICU. Chest. 2015;148: e184.
Weled BJ, Adzhigirey LA, Hodgman TM, et al. Critical Care Delivery: The Importance of Process of Care and ICU Structure to Improved Outcomes: An Update From the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force on Models of Critical Care. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1520–5.
Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825–73.
Varelas PN, Schultz L, Conti M, Spanaki M, Genarrelli T, Hacein-Bey L. The impact of a neuro-intensivist on patients with stroke admitted to a neurosciences intensive care unit. Neurocrit Care. 2008;9:293–9.
Suarez JI, Zaidat OO, Suri MF, Feen ES, Lynch G, Hickman J, Georgiadis A, Selman WR. Length of stay and mortality in neurocritically ill patients: impact of a specialized neurocritical care team. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2311–7.
Moheet AM, Livesay SL, Abdelhak T, et al. Correction to: Standards for Neurologic Critical Care Units: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from The Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care. 2019;31:229.
• Cook AM, Morgan Jones G, Hawryluk GWJ, et al. Guidelines for the Acute Treatment of Cerebral Edema in Neurocritical Care Patients. Neurocrit Care. 2020;32:647–666. NCS guidelines on cerebral edema management in neurocritical care pathologies.
Madden LK, Hill M, May TL, Human T, Guanci MM, Jacobi J, Moreda MV, Badjatia N. The Implementation of Targeted Temperature Management: An Evidence-Based Guideline from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care. 2017;27:468–87.
Frontera JA, Lewin JJ 3rd, Rabinstein AA, et al. Guideline for Reversal of Antithrombotics in Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and Society of Critical Care Medicine. Neurocrit Care. 2016;24:6–46.
Nyquist P, Bautista C, Jichici D, et al. Prophylaxis of Venous Thrombosis in Neurocritical Care Patients: An Evidence-Based Guideline: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care. 2016;24:47–60.
Torbey MT, Bösel J, Rhoney DH, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the management of large hemispheric infarction : a statement for health care professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the German Society for Neuro-intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Neurocrit Care. 2015;22:146–64.
Brophy GM, Bell R, Claassen J, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17:3–23.
Fried HI, Nathan BR, Rowe AS, Zabramski JM, Andaluz N, Bhimraj A, Guanci MM, Seder DB, Singh JM. The Insertion and Management of External Ventricular Drains: An Evidence-Based Consensus Statement : A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care. 2016;24:61–81.
Le Roux P, Menon DK, Citerio G, et al. Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21 Suppl 2:S1–26.
Diringer MN, Bleck TP, Claude Hemphill J 3rd, et al. Critical care management of patients following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: recommendations from the Neurocritical Care Society’s Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference. Neurocrit Care 2011;15:211–240.
• Venkatasubba Rao CP, Suarez JI, Martin RH, et al. Global Survey of Outcomes of Neurocritical Care Patients: Analysis of the PRINCE Study Part 2. Neurocrit Care 2020;32:88–103. Point prevalence study documenting the types of patients seen, staffing and patient care models, procedures performed, and in-hospital LOS and mortality, in NCCUs across the world.
• Suarez JI, Martin RH, Bauza C, et al. Worldwide Organization of Neurocritical Care: Results from the PRINCE Study Part 1. Neurocrit Care 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-019-00750-3. Point prevalence study documenting the ICU structures, specialties of practitioners, clinical resource allocation, and use of clinical management protocols, in NCCUs across the world.
Lele AV, Quality Committee of the Neurocritical Care Society, Moheet AM. Neurocritical Care Quality Improvement Practices: A Survey of Members of the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care 2020;32:295–301. Survey study documenting the current state of QI efforts in NCCUs in the U.S.
Purnell TS, Calhoun EA, Golden SH, Halladay JR, Krok-Schoen JL, Appelhans BM, Cooper LA. Achieving Health Equity: Closing The Gaps In Health Care Disparities, Interventions, And Research. Health Aff. 2016;35:1410–5.
Kramer AH, Zygun DA. Do neurocritical care units save lives? Measuring the impact of specialized ICUs. Neurocrit Care. 2011;14:329–33.
Mirski MA, Chang CW, Cowan R. Impact of a neuroscience intensive care unit on neurosurgical patient outcomes and cost of care: evidence-based support for an intensivist-directed specialty ICU model of care. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2001;13:83–92.
Josephson SA, Douglas VC, Lawton MT, English JD, Smith WS, Ko NU. Improvement in intensive care unit outcomes in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage after initiation of neurointensivist co-management. J Neurosurg. 2010;112:626–30.
Diringer MN, Edwards DF. Admission to a neurologic/neurosurgical intensive care unit is associated with reduced mortality rate after intracerebral hemorrhage. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:635–40.
Gupta R, Horev A, Nguyen T, et al. Higher volume endovascular stroke centers have faster times to treatment, higher reperfusion rates and higher rates of good clinical outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg. 2013;5:294–7.
Leifer D, Bravata DM, Connors JJB 3rd, et al. Metrics for measuring quality of care in comprehensive stroke centers: detailed follow-up to Brain Attack Coalition comprehensive stroke center recommendations: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2011;42:849–77.
•• Adeoye O, Nyström KV, Yavagal DR, et al. Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care: A 2019 Update. Stroke 2019;50:e187–e210. Policy statement from the AHA/ASA with detailed recommendations for stroke systems of care; specifically how EMS and hospitals should use the Comprehensive Stroke Center, Primary Stroke Center, Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Center, and Acute Stroke Ready Hospital designations to triage stroke patients from the field and for hospital-to-hospital transfer to ensure they get to the best care as fast as possible. Also provides recommendations on in-hospital stroke care and transitions of care.
Grieve R, Sadique Z, Gomes M, Smith M, Lecky FE, Hutchinson PJA, Menon DK, Rowan KM, Harrison DA. Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) Study Investigators 2016 An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative care locations for critically ill adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Br J Neurosurg. 30:388–396.
Gorelick PB. Primary and comprehensive stroke centers: history, value and certification criteria. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;15:78–89.
Moheet AM, Livesay SL, Abdelhak T, et al. Standards for Neurologic Critical Care Units: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from The Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29:145–60.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) TeamSTEPPS. In: TeamSTEPPS. https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/index.html. Accessed 28 May2022
Low XM, Horrigan D, Brewster DJ. The effects of team-training in intensive care medicine: A narrative review. J Crit Care. 2018;48:283–9.
Society of Critical Care Medicine. ICU Liberation. 2018. https://www.sccm.org/iculiberation. Accessed 19 Apr 2022.
•• Latronico N. Faculty Opinions recommendation of Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults. Faculty Opin Post Public Peer Rev Biomed Literature. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3410/f.734257237.793558849. Prospective multicenter cohort study showing that compliance with the ABCDEF Bundle had a dose-responsive association with multiple outcomes: hospital death within 7 days, next-day mechanical ventilation, delirium, physical restraint use, coma, ICU readmission, discharge to a facility other than home.
Marklund N. The Neurological Wake-up Test-A Role in Neurocritical Care Monitoring of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients? Front Neurol. 2017;8:540.
Halperin JJ, Moran S, Prasek D, Richards A, Ruggiero C, Maund C. Reducing Hospital-Acquired Infections Among the Neurologically Critically Ill. Neurocrit Care. 2016;25:170–7.
Lord AS, Nicholson J, Lewis A. Infection Prevention in the Neurointensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review. Neurocrit Care. 2019;31:196–210.
•• Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1161/str.0000000000000211. AHA/ASA Guidelines for prehospital and hospital management of acute ischemic stroke.
Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44:870–947.
McCredie VA, Alali AS, Scales DC, Rubenfeld GD, Cuthbertson BH, Nathens AB. Impact of ICU Structure and Processes of Care on Outcomes After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1139–49.
Vitt JR, Do LV, Shah NH, Fong G, Nguyen NY, Kim AS. Before-After Study of an Electronic Order Set for Reversal of Vitamin K Antagonist-Associated Intracerebral Hemorrhage. The Neurohospitalist. 2018;8:18–23.
Keebler JR, Lazzara EH, Patzer BS, Palmer EM, Plummer JP, Smith DC, Lew V, Fouquet S, Raymond Chan Y, Riss R. Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Standardized Handoff Protocols on Patient, Provider, and Organizational Outcomes. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2016;58:1187–205.
Joint Commission. Standards for Urgent Care: UCS : Accreditation Policies, Standards, Elements of Performance, Scoring. 2010.
Nasca TJ, Day SH, Amis ES Jr, Duty Hour Task Force ACGME. The new recommendations on duty hours from the ACGME Task Force. N Engl J Med. 2010;363: e3.
Gunter EP, Viswanathan M, Stutzman SE, Olson DM, Aiyagari V. Development and Testing of an Electronic Multidisciplinary Rounding Tool. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2019;30:222–9.
Lyons MN, Standley TDA, Gupta AK. Quality improvement of doctors’ shift-change handover in neuro-critical care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19: e62.
• Schmidt RF, Vibbert MD, Vernick CA, et al. Standardizing postoperative handoffs using the evidence-based IPASS framework through a multidisciplinary initiative improves handoff communication for neurosurgical patients in the neuro-intensive care unit. J Clin Neurosci. 2021;92:67–74. Prospective study demonstrating standardized IPASS handoff for neurosurgical NCCU patients significantly improved communication of critical clinical information.
Gold CA, Mayer SA, Lennihan L, Claassen J, Willey JZ. Unplanned Transfers from Hospital Wards to the Neurological Intensive Care Unit. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23:159–65.
Coughlin DG, Kumar MA, Patel NN, Hoffman RL, Kasner SE. Preventing Early Bouncebacks to the Neurointensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Analysis and Quality Improvement Pilot. Neurocrit Care. 2018;28:175–83.
• Murray NM, Joshi AN, Kronfeld K, Hobbs K, Bernier E, Hirsch KG, Gold CA. A Standardized Checklist Improves the Transfer of Stroke Patients from the Neurocritical Care Unit to Hospital Ward. Neurohospitalist. 2020;10:100–108. Prospective study demonstrating a transfer checklist for patients transferring out of the NCCU significantly decreases hospital LOS.
• Sather J, Littauer R, Finn E, Matouk C, Sheth K, Parwani V, Pham L, Ulrich A, Rothenberg C, Venkatesh AK. A Multimodal Intervention to Improve the Quality and Safety of Interhospital Care Transitions for Nontraumatic Intracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safety. 2021;47:99–106. Prospective study demonstrating that optimizing the interhospital transfer process led to significant reductions in ED boarding times and ED LOS for ICH and SAH patients transferred from outside hospitals.
• Chilakamarri P, Finn EB, Sather J, et al. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: Engineering Safer Neurocritical Care Transitions. Neurocrit Care. 2021;35:232–240. Prospective study demonstrating that optimizing the interhospital transfer process for ICH patients using FMEA analysis led to significant reductions in ED LOS.
• Shank CD, Erickson NJ, Miller DW, Lindsey BF, Walters BC. Reserved Bed Program Reduces Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit Capacity Strain: An Implementation Study. Neurosurgery. 2020;86:132–138. Prospective study demonstrating that reserving NCCU beds for NCC patients significantly increased NCC transfer volume from outside hospitals and decreased declines due to bed capacity.
Kessler BA, Catalino MP, Jordan JD. Reducing the Reported Mortality Index Within a Neurocritical Care Unit Through Documentation and Coding Accuracy. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:e819–27.
Creutzfeldt CJ, Engelberg RA, Healey L, Cheever CS, Becker KJ, Holloway RG, Curtis JR. Palliative Care Needs in the Neuro-ICU. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1677–84.
Nickele CM, Kamps TK, Medow JE. Safety of a DVT chemoprophylaxis protocol following traumatic brain injury: a single center quality improvement initiative. Neurocrit Care. 2013;18:184–92.
Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/index.html. Accessed 26 Mar 2022.
Berenholtz SM, Dorman T, Ngo K, Pronovost PJ. Qualitative review of intensive care unit quality indicators. J Crit Care. 2002;17:1–12.
Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs). 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/index.html. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 30-day Risk-Adjusted Mortality Measures. 2007. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/downloads/HospitalMortalityAboutAMI_HF.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Applying the AHRQ Indicators to Quality Data. 2016. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/professionals/systems/hospital/qitoolkit/b1-applyingqis.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. AHRQ National Scorecard on Hospital-Acquired Conditions. Page last reviewed July 2020. https://www.ahrq.gov/hai/pfp/index.html. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.
Braun J-P, Mende H, Bause H, et al. Quality indicators in intensive care medicine: why? Use or burden for the intensivist. Ger Med Sci. 2010;8:Doc22.
Josephson SA, Ferro J, Cohen A, Webb A, Lee E, Vespa PM. Quality improvement in neurology: Inpatient and emergency care quality measure set: Executive summary. Neurology. 2017;89:730–5.
•• Livesay S, Fried H, Gagnon D, et al. Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-019-00846-w. This NCC performance measure set from the NCS is the only published performance measure set dedicated to neurocritical care, and contains 21 evidence-based neurocritical care-specific performance measures that can be used to drive performance improvement.
The Joint Commission. Measures by Certification Program: Acute Stroke Ready Center, Primary Stroke Center, Thrombectomy Capable Stroke Center, Comprehensive Stroke Center. Copyright 2022. https://www.jointcommission.org/measurement/measures/stroke. Accessed 19 Dec 2021.
The Joint Commission. Specifications Manual for Joint Commission National Quality Measures (v2018A): Comprehensive Stroke Performance Measures (CSTK). 2018. https://manual.jointcommission.org/releases/TJC2018A/ComprehensiveStroke.html. Accessed 26 Mar 2022.
American Heart Association. Get With The Guidelines® - Stroke Recognition Criteria. In: Get With The Guidelines® - Stroke Recognition Criteria. Copyright 2022. https://www.heart.org/en/professional/quality-improvement/get-with-the-guidelines/get-with-the-guidelines-stroke/get-with-the-guidelines-stroke-recognition-criteria. Accessed 26 Mar 2022.
Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2725–32.
Pronovost P. Interventions to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU: the Keystone Intensive Care Unit Project. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:S171.e1–5.
American Medical Association. Prevention of Central Venous Catheter (CVC) - Related Bloodstream Infections – National Quality Strategy Domain: Patient Safety – Meaningful Measure Area: Healthcare-Associated Infections. Quality ID #76 (NQF 2726). 2019. https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/QPP_quality_measure_specifications/CQM-Measures/2020_Measure_076_MIPSCQM.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2021.
Song S, Fonarow GC, Olson DM, et al. Association of Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Program Participation and Clinical Outcomes for Medicare Beneficiaries With Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2016;47:1294–302.
• Seker F, Bonekamp S, Rode S, Hyrenbach S, Bendszus M, Möhlenbruch MA. Direct Admission vs. Secondary Transfer to a Comprehensive Stroke Center for Thrombectomy : Retrospective Analysis of a Regional Stroke Registry with 2797 Patients. Clin Neuroradiol. 2020;30:795–800. Retrospective analysis showing that patients directly admitted to a comprehensive stroke center achieved better outcomes and mRS than those secondarily transferred to a comprehensive stroke center.
Li L, Barnes T. A Visual Dashboard to Monitor Restraint Use in Hospitalized Psychiatry Patients. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021;47:282–7.
Bakos KK, Zimmermann D, Moriconi D. Implementing the Clinical Dashboard at VCUHS. NI. 2012;11.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Instructions to Develop a Dashboard. 2012. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/provider-enrollment-and-certification/qapi/downloads/instrdevdshbddebedits.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2022.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. Managing data for performance improvement. 2011. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/managingdataperformanceimprovement.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2022.
World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2022. https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed 26 Mar 2022.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Navaz Karanjia declares that she has no potential conflicts of interest. Venkataditya Dugyala declares that he has no potential conflicts of interest. Casey Olm-Shipman declares that she has no potential conflicts of interest. Abhijit V. Lele reports salary support from LifeCenter Northwest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Critical Care Neurology
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Karanjia, N., Dugyala, V., Olm-Shipman, C. et al. Quality Improvement in Neurocritical Care: a Review of the Current Landscape and Best Practices. Curr Treat Options Neurol 24, 533–549 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-022-00734-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-022-00734-3