Health care quality improvement collaboratives implement care bundles to target critical parts of a complex system to improve a specific health outcome. The quantitative impact of each component of the care bundle is often unknown. Orchestrated testing (OT) is an application of planned experimentation that allows simultaneous examination of multiple practices (bundle elements) to determine which intervention or combination of interventions affects the outcome. The purpose of this article is to describe the process needed to design and implement OT methodology for improvement collaboratives. Examples from a multicenter collaborative to reduce central line–associated bloodstream infections highlight the practical application of this approach. The key components for implementation of OT are the following: (1) define current practice and evidence, (2) develop a factorial matrix and calculate power, (3) formulate structure for engagement, (4) analyze results, and (5) replicate findings.
ResarRPronovostPHaradenCSimmondsTRaineyTNolanT. Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31:243-248.
2.
JeongISParkSMLeeJMSongJYLeeSJ. Effect of central line bundle on central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:710-716.
3.
RobbEJarmanBSuntharalingamGHiggensCTennantRElcockK. Using care bundles to reduce in-hospital mortality: quantitative survey. BMJ. 2010;340:c1234.
4.
MarraARCalRGDurãoMS. Impact of a program to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection in the zero tolerance era. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38:434-439.
5.
FuruyaEYDickAPerencevichENPogorzelskaMGoldmannDStonePW. Central line bundle implementation in US intensive care units and impact on bloodstream infections. PLoS One. 2011;6:e15452.
6.
ZimmermanRKNowalkMPLinCJ. Factorial design for improving influenza vaccination among employees of a large health system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:691-697.
7.
RotondiAJSpringMGradyJ. Use of a fractional factorial experiment to assess the e-healthcare application design needs of persons with dual diagnosis. J Dual Diagn. 2012;8:277-282.
8.
DenbergTDKimFJFlaniganRC. The influence of patient race and social vulnerability on urologist treatment recommendations in localized prostate carcinoma. Med Care. 2006;44:1137-1141.
9.
ChuoJAftabSHeimallLSoorikianLProvostLAdesA. Impact of team building using a novel technique (planned experimentation) to standardize endotracheal tube taping practice in the NICU. J Hosp Adm. 2014;3:135-143.
MoenRNolanTProvostL. Quality Improvement Through Planned Experimentation. 3rd ed.New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional; 2012.
12.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Levels of neonatal care. Pediatrics. 2012;130:587-597.
13.
MurthyKDykesFDPadulaMA. The Children’s Hospitals Neonatal Database: an overview of patient complexity, outcomes and variation in care. J Perinatol. 2014;34:582-586.
14.
PiazzaABrozanskiBProvostL. SLUG Bug: quality improvement with orchestrated testing leads to NICU CLABSI reduction. Pediatrics. In press.
15.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. Diabetes Spectrum. 2004;17:97-101.
16.
BoxGEHunterJSHunterWG. Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation and Discovery. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2005:173-234.
17.
PerlaRJProvostLPMurraySK. Sampling considerations for health care improvement. Qual Manag Health Care. 2014;23:268-279.
18.
ProvostLP. Analytical studies: a framework for quality improvement design and analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(suppl 1):i92-i96.
19.
KaplanHCLannonCWalshMCDonovanEF; Ohio Perinatal Quality Collaborative. Ohio statewide quality-improvement collaborative to reduce late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2011;127:427-435.
LannonCMMilesPV. Pediatric collaborative improvement networks: bridging quality gaps to improve health outcomes. Pediatrics. 2013;131(suppl 4):S187-S188.
23.
GroverTRPallottoEKBrozanskiB. Interdisciplinary teamwork and the power of a quality improvement collaborative in tertiary neonatal intensive care units. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2015;29:179-186.
24.
LangleyGJMoenRNolanKMNolanTWNormanCLProvostLP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd ed.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009:23-25.
25.
ChoiBCPakAW. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med. 2006;29:351-364.
26.
BakerDPDayRSalasE. Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(4, pt 2):1576-1598.
27.
KaplanHCProvostLPFroehleCMMargolisPA. The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:13-20.
28.
DenhamCSullenbergerCBIIIQuaidDWNanceJJ. An NTSB for health care: learning from innovation: debate and innovate or capitulate. J Patient Saf. 2012;8:3-14.
29.
KachaliaA. Improving patient safety through transparency. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1677-1679.
30.
LeonardMGrahamSBonacumD. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(suppl 1):i85-i90.
31.
KiloCM. A framework for collaborative improvement: lessons from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s breakthrough series. Qual Manag Health Care. 1998;6(4):1-13.
32.
ProvostLPMurraySK. The Health Care Data Guide: Learning From Data for Improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2011:149-200.
