Outcomes Research—Closing the Gap Between Evidence and Action: How Outcome Measurement Informs the Implementation of Evidence-ba

Author(s): 
Corrine McIsaac, MEd, BScN, RN

In an overburdened healthcare system, the end results inevitably justify or undermine the means employed to improve patient care. Many health care organizations have articulated the need to achieve more positive outcomes in wound care. However, an increased focus on the practical application of outcome measurement processes is required to ensure that specific actions undertaken to improve patient care ultimately achieve systemic success. Currently,numerous programs in place in home care facilities across the country use multiple strategies simultaneously to improve clinical and financial outcomes with respect to wound care. However,many of these programs do not include a standardized process for outcome measurement.“ The need for clearly articulated expectations, measurable outcomes, consequences and incentives for performance has become the ‘new norm’ and consumers have come to expect the ‘evidence’ that the health care system is both efficient and effective.”1 Data collected by the author on more than 16,000 Canadian home care clients described in Figure 1a and 1b reveals that in community practice,wound care can consume up to 50% of care being delivered at any one time. Among those clients, 2772 received daily dressing changes, and 412 received twice daily dressing changes (Figure 1c) that cost tax payers more than $65 million (Canadian) in labor costs in a 1-year period. Implementing a method for outcome measurement is vital to the sustainability of a wound care program as it offers evidence to assess whether or not operational efforts to improve care are consistent with program expectations and objectives.

The implementation process can be a complicated puzzle to piece together for all stakeholders. A kind of operational myopia can occur as each individual or team inevitably focuses on their piece of the implementation process without a clear vision of how each piece of the process is either advanced or undermined by the efficacy of other pieces of the process. A consistent and sustained vision is necessary among all stakeholders to ensure an accurate understanding of the ways in which the success or failure of one aspect of the program can have a profound impact, either positively or negatively, on other aspects of the program. Implementing an outcome measurement process simultaneously illustrates success and illuminates inconsistencies in efforts to improve clinical and economic outcomes. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure that the clinical, financial, and human resources involved in the implementation process are managed effectively. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that outcome measurement is a key factor required to ensure the sustainability of a wound care program.

Translating Evidence Into Action: Evidence-Based Practice, Education, and Knowledge Transfer

References: 

1. Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin, LLP. Health Law Bulletin. Montreal, Canada; October 2005.
2. Dawes M, Davies PT, Gray AM, Mant J, Seers K, Snowball R, eds. Evidence-Based Practice: A Primer for Health Care Professionals. Oxford, UK: Churchill Livingstone Publishers; 1999.
3. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR).The CIHR Knowledge Translation Strategy 2004–2009: Innovation in Action. Available at: http://www.irsc.gc.ca/e/26574.html#defining. Accessed: September 6, 2007.
4. Landry R, Lamari M, Amara N. The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Admin Rev. 2003;63(2):192–205.
5. Belcher AE, Sibbald RG. Mentoring: the ultimate professional relationship. In: Krasner DL, Rodeheaver GT, Sibbald RG, eds. Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals. 3rd ed.Wayne, PA: HMP Communications; 2001:233–241.
6. McIsaac C. Health Outcomes Worldwide database, 2007.
7. Orsted H, Rosenthal S. Pressure ulcer awareness program pilot: overview of pilot project. Wound Care Canada. 2007;5(1):40–46.
8. Carberry C. Outcomes steering practice: when the ends determine the means. Int J Nurs Pract. 1998;4(1):2–8.
9. Wojner AW. Outcomes Management: Applications to Clinical Practice. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book; 2001.
10. Bates-Jensen B, McNees P. The Wound Intelligence System: early issues and findings from multi-site tests. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1996;42(10 Suppl A):53S–61S.
11. Braden B, Bergstrom N. Clinical utility of the Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Decubitus. 1989;2(3):44–51.
12. McIsaac C. Managing wound care outcomes. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2005;51(4):54–68.
13. ConvaTec Canada. Healing Excellence with Advanced Learning (h.e.a.l.). St. Laurent, Quebec: 2007.