Preventing Pressure Ulcers in the

Veterans Health Administration Using a

Virtual Breakthrough Series
Collaborative
Zubkoff, Lisa PhD; Neily, Julia MS, MPH, RN; King, Beth BSN, MA, RN, CCM; Morgan, Storm MSN, RN,
MBA; Young-Xu, Yinong PhD; Boar, Shoshana MS; Mills, Peter PhD, MS
Journal of Nursing Care Quality: October/December 2017 - Volume 32 - Issue 4 - p 301–308
doi: 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000242
Articles

 Abstract
 Author Information
 Article Outline
The Veterans Health Administration implemented a Virtual Breakthrough Series to prevent pressure
ulcers. The pressure ulcer rate decreased from 1.2 to 0.9 per 1000 bed days of care (P = .017). The most
common interventions were education (N = 26; 68%), improved documentation (N = 23; 61%), and the
use of equipment and supplies (N = 21; 55%). In summary, this project helped improve pressure ulcer
rates in the Veterans Health Administration and presents a promising model for implementing a virtual
model for improvement.
PREVENTING PRESSURE ULCERS is an important component of patient safety programs. Each year,
an estimated 2.5 million patients in the United States develop a pressure ulcer.1 Pressure ulcer incidence
rates in acute care hospitals in the United States range from 0.4% to 12%1,2 and from 2.2% to 23.0% in
long-term care settings.2 Pressure ulcers are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, longer
inpatient stays, and higher costs.3–5 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has focused on pressure
ulcer prevention (PUP) in all clinical settings, including inpatient acute care, inpatient mental health, spinal
cord injury, community living centers (long-term care), home-based primary care, outpatient primary care,
and other areas where patients are at risk for pressure ulcer development. Nonetheless, PUP remains a
high priority issue for VHA.6
Recent reviews have found that effective prevention efforts include special support surfaces, along with a
multicomponent strategy such as a team approach, the use of skin champions, staff education, and audit
and feedback.5,7 A systematic review by Sullivan and Schoelles 5 reviewed the evidence on
multicomponent strategies to prevent pressure ulcers and examined contextual impacts for programs
designed to reduce facility-acquired pressure ulcers. This review found moderate evidence for improved
care process and pressure ulcer outcomes when a multicomponent program was used. Such programs
might include standardization of pressure-ulcer specific interventions and documentation, involvement of
multidisciplinary teams and leadership, use of skin champions, staff education, and sustained audit and
feedback. A systematic comparative effectiveness review by Chou et al 7 reported that among high-risk
populations, moderate evidence was found that advanced static support surfaces were associated with
lower risk for pressure ulcers when compared with standard mattresses.
Building upon current expertise, the above evidence, and existing efforts in the VHA, we implemented a
virtual breakthrough series (VBTS) to further improve implementation of evidence-based interventions.
Previous quality improvement efforts in the VHA have focused on data feedback to prompt change,
whereas the VBTS utilizes dynamic personalized coaching and group education to facilitate successful
implementation of interventions. The purpose of this article is to describe the approaches and
experiences of facilities within the VHA system that participated in the PUP VBTS.
Back to Top | Article Outline
METHODS

Virtual breakthrough series

We used a VBTS method based upon the Breakthrough Series (BTS) model, developed by the Institute
for Healthcare Improvement in 1995. This approach is a collaborative model for achieving
improvement.8 The model is designed to help organizations close the gap between “what we know and
what we do.” The BTS model uses a short-term (∼6 months) learning experience that brings together
teams from hospitals to improve care in a specific topic area. The model consists of 4 key elements: aims,
measurement, implementing changes, and testing small cycles of change. 8 The method has gained
increased use during the last 15 years and has been described elsewhere. 9–11 We used the BTS approach
because even though the interventions to prevent pressure ulcers were not novel, we needed an
innovative approach to help teams implement changes. The model not only prompts sites to create
interdisciplinary teams, but also ensures leadership support by making the clinical topic a priority and
providing resources and support to make changes. The BTS approach also provides a structure in which
to create realistic and measurable aims. Participants are taught what changes to make on the basis of the
evidence and they are taught how to make those changes based upon the model for improvement. The
overall BTS model is depicted in the Supplemental Digital Content, Figure available
at: http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A311.
Building on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement model of the BTS, 8 we developed a virtual version to
address the improvement needs of VHA facilities across the nation. 12–14 This eliminates the need for travel
and keeps clinicians at the bedside while providing ongoing access to expert faculty.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Expert faculty
Given that PUP remains a high priority among VHA leaders, the goal of this VBTS was to provide a virtual
learning opportunity to help VHA clinical teams more fully implement evidence-based practices to prevent
pressure ulcers. The faculty included VHA staff who are experts in PUP as well as quality improvement
methods. Faculty helped set the overall goals and direction for the project, served as advisors to the
planning committee, and taught process improvement strategies and interventions. Each team was
assigned a coaching pair—an Implementation Coach and a Clinical Coach—to guide the team throughout
the VBTS.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Change package
A Change Package is designed to identify ideal care for a specific clinical area and specific changes that
can be applied to improve performance.8 Teams were given a Change Package, which presented the
Veterans Affairs (VA) Skin Bundle. Interventions included assessment and inspection, pressure relieving
surfaces, turning and repositioning, incontinence management, and nutrition and hydration assessment
and intervention.15 Interventions included in the Change Package received A, B, or C ratings for the
strength of evidence (Supplemental Digital Content, Change Package available
at: http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A312).
Back to Top | Article Outline

Recruitment and team enrollment

Teams from VHA hospital facilities nationwide were invited in December 2014 via e-mails from VHA
leadership to participate in this project. Our application and participation process for this VBTS was open
to all VA facilities and voluntary to reach as many teams as possible that were interested. We recognize
that it is possible that this “open call” approach may represent either high-performing sites or low-
performing sites. If a hospital had multiple units participating, they were required to have a team for each
unit. We directed the participating facilities to develop an interprofessional team to implement the VA Skin
Bundle as part of the VBTS process. We advised them to implement changes at the unit level and then
spread further once success was achieved. Teams were from acute care or long-term care units and
were also required to include a local senior leader. The teams made a 5-month commitment to actively
make changes with coaching, followed by 5 months of independent continuous improvement.
Back to Top | Article Outline

PROJECT PHASES
We established three 5-month phases for this project (Supplemental Digital Content, Figure available
at: http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A311):
* Prework: January 2015–February 2015 (which included October-December 2014 for analysis)
* Action: March 2015–July 2015
* Continuous Improvement: August 2015–December 2015
Back to Top | Article Outline

Prework phase
We used the prework approach as was used in prior projects.12–14 During the prework phase, we held a
call (offered twice) to orient teams to the project; educate teams on building a successful team, identifying
project goals, and collecting baseline data on the current pressure ulcer rates; and review the Change
Package. Coaches also held a “Meet and Greet” call with each of their assigned teams to review their
current PUP program and discuss the team goals and baseline data on pressure ulcer rates.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Action phase

Learning activities
All learning was conducted virtually, via phone, live meeting, and e-mails. There were a total of 10
nationwide learning session calls or webinars over the 5-month Action Phase (2 learning sessions per
month). The first call of the month was an educational presentation; the second call was an open-forum
discussion. Topics in the webinars included description and evidence for each intervention in the VA Skin
bundle, data collection and documentation, lessons learned and best practices, and patient engagement
and education. These sessions also provided an opportunity to discuss barriers to implementing
evidence-based interventions and methods to overcome those obstacles. In addition to the monthly
written feedback, described later, coaches were accessible via e-mail or phone between learning
sessions to answer questions or troubleshoot. The frequency of informal contacts was not tracked as part
of this project.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Senior leader reports
Teams were required to submit a “Senior Leader Report”—a progress report that included their overall
aims for the collaborative, specific changes implemented during the month, and measures of process and
outcomes they were tracking. The reports also included lessons learned that month and plans for the
future.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Coaching
Team cohorts of 6 to 8 teams were assigned a coaching pair (1 implementation coach and 1 clinical
coach). The Implementation Coaches were master's level prepared with quality improvement knowledge
and experience. The Clinical Coaches were nurses with expertise in PUP. Each coaching pair conducted
a monthly group call with the members of their respective teams (ie, 1 call for all teams together). The
goal was to provide the team members a collaborative learning opportunity using an “all teach, all learn”
approach. All team members presented on their accomplishments for the prior month and shared the
successes and challenges they currently face in implementing appropriate PUP interventions. The
coaches also provided written feedback on the monthly senior leader reports. Coaching feedback focused
on process improvements to trial interventions as well as ideas to manage or eliminate barriers impeding
frontline changes. Feedback from coaches was sent to the entire team, including the team's senior leader
(see Sample Senior Leadership Report and Feedback, Supplemental Digital Content, Exhibit available
at: http://links.lww.com/JNCQ/A313).
Back to Top | Article Outline

Evaluation

Process assessment
To assess participation, we used final reports submitted by teams at the end of the continuous
improvement phase (the last submitted report) to quantify the number and type of new or modified
interventions. Interventions were coded by consensus by 2 of the authors. Coders reviewed each final
report together and classified the types of interventions and the number implemented by consensus. At
the end of the VBTS, we conducted a survey about the coaching provided. We asked what worked well
and could be improved, what was the most and least helpful, and a question about the helpfulness of
coaching using a 5-point rating scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent).
Back to Top | Article Outline
Outcome evaluation
Pressure ulcer rates were the outcome measures. Staff from community-living centers (long-term care)
submitted data using the self-reported Advancing Excellence database.16 Acute care inpatient units'
pressure ulcer rates were collected through an automated data pull based on coding information at
discharge according to the Patient Safety Indicator guidelines for pressure ulcers.17 However, since we
were doing quality improvement work at the unit level and the Patient Safety Indicator rates are produced
at the facility level, we asked units to complete a template with the number of new unit-acquired pressure
ulcers and bed days of care for each month of the project. This produced an incidence rate of the number
of pressure ulcers per 1000 bed days of care.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical analysis
We compared data before, during, and after the project for participating teams for the time frames
described earlier. The rates were calculated as the total number of events divided by the total bed-days of
care. Comparisons of rates were conducted using Poisson regression model. All tests were 2-tailed, and
a P value of < .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. Analyses were
performed using STATA statistical software version 11 (College Station, Texas).
Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS
Team participation
Thirty-eight teams participated in the project. Teams submitted monthly reports on average 88% (range:
76%-100%) of the time. Of the 38 teams, 12 teams were focused in acute care units and 22 teams were
focused in long-term care or community-living centers. Of the remaining 4 teams, 1 focused on both acute
care and community-living center, 2 focused across the entire facility, and 1 team focused on short-term
care. Teams in the project represent 15 of the 20 Veterans Integrated Service Networks. At least 1 team
is located in each of the VA geographic regions.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Process evaluation

Interventions
There were 23 unique interventions implemented (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1 presents the interventions
from VA Skin Bundle that teams implemented. Table 2 presents additional nonbundle interventions that
teams implemented. The most frequently implemented change was provider and/or staff education (N =
26; 68% of teams). The next most common interventions were improvement of documentation such as
the assessment template or skin or wound note (N = 23; 61%), and the use of equipment and supplies
such as protective boots or heel dressings, protective sacral dressings, turn systems, wheelchair
cushions, catheter-related products, or use of locked box in veteran room to store products (N = 21;
55%). Consistent with standards of care, turning and repositioning were not reported as a new or
modified intervention. The average number of interventions implemented by teams was 4. The most
common number of interventions implemented by a team was 3, with a range of 0 to 8.

Table 1

Table 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Coaching survey
Among the 33 respondents, 82% reported that their experience with coaching was excellent or very good.
For those individuals who responded to open-ended questions, coaching and feedback were viewed as
helpful and constructive and offered “fresh eyes” on the issue. Informal communication (phone calls, e-
mails) were appreciated as an extra layer of support. For example, 1 respondent stated, “I liked the ability
to have a teleconference with our coaches” while another stated, “Receiving the feedback on our monthly
reports and the open-ended questions helped us think about the areas we were missing.” At the same
time, respondents reported that not all coaching was individualized and that being coached was a time
commitment and resulted in a large number of e-mails. Respondents particularly liked the group
discussion calls when participants were allowed to share, hear about the work of other teams, and
network.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Evaluation
Data on pressure ulcer incidence rates were available for 26 of the 38 teams that participated in the
project. The mean aggregated pressure ulcer rate decreased from 1.6 during the prephase to 1.2 per
1000 bed days of care during the action phase (P = .015). The mean aggregated pressure ulcer rate
decreased from 1.2 during the action phase to 0.9 per 1000 bed days of care during the continuous
improvement phase (P = .017) (see the Figure). Across the 3 phases of the project, the pressure ulcer
rates decreased by 44%.

Figure. Pressure ulc...

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION
Participating units in the VBTS showed improvements in decreasing pressure ulcer incidence rates. This
is similar to improvement findings in a previous BTS on reducing hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in
acute care settings.13 This project built upon our prior success and expanded to include long-term care
and acute care settings. This additional success supports that the VBTS may be an appropriate
improvement methodology to help VHA and other teams to make changes that result in reduced rates.
Teams were engaged and focused with a mode of 3 interventions per team. This is different from other
BTS with more interventions where teams struggled to prioritize and focus based on need. For example,
in a project to reduce falls and fall-related injuries on average teams implemented 6.44 interventions with
a range of 1 to 12 and a mode of 6. This is twice the mode of the current project. In the falls project,
teams were encouraged to implement a multicomponent fall prevention program. Therefore, at times
teams struggled to prioritize and focus leading to the implementation of many interventions. This points to
the value of focus and simplicity of the evidence-based interventions in the VA Skin Bundle and is
consistent with recommendations for simplicity and standardization of PUP interventions. 5
The 2 most commonly implemented interventions were provider and/or staff education and improved
documentation. In alignment with the strength of actions hierarchy for patient safety, education and
documentation would be considered weaker actions.18 While there is value in implementing education or
improved documentation, the strongest approach would be to pair these with clinical changes at the
bedside. On the basis of the coding scheme, we categorized education and improved documentation as
separate and distinct actions from clinical changes. More frequent implementation of education and
documentation actions may also be related to staff response to prompts. For example, it is easier to
assign accountability to document than it may be to ensure that a patient was turned and repositioned as
needed. It may also be that education and documentation interventions are more easily measured. For
instance, to measure adequate turning and repositioning managers would ideally use observation.
However, observation may also create resentment among staff members or give a false measure of
improvement due to the Hawthorne effect.19 Overall, the interventions of education, documentation, and
use of equipment/supplies are similar to changes that teams have made in other BTS.12
We are aware that staff members are frequently asked to do more during change efforts; however, the 1
intervention that involved doing less was using fewer layers of linen with a patient to prevent pressure
ulcer development due to multiple layers. This was implemented only by 3 teams. This contradiction might
 be a deterrent to the de-implementation of certain interventions. In future BTS, it may be beneficial to
highlight what teams can do less of to allow more time for high-impact evidence-based interventions.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Limitations
This work has several limitations. Results are based on self-reported data from 26 of the 38 teams,
limiting the generalizability of the findings. Data to compare outcomes between participating and
nonparticipating units were not available. Despite these data limitations, there was still improvement. In
addition, we did not observe the teams implementing changes or verify their reported rates. Since the
educational sessions were virtual, we reliably tracked team attendance. However, we do not know if
attendance indicated 1 person or several team members. Another limitation is that we did not capture
long-term sustainability of improvement. Future work should integrate measurement of long-term
sustainability for quality improvement projects.
Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION
These limitations notwithstanding, the current project provides evidence that the participation of local
interprofessional teams in a VBTS was associated with significant reductions in pressure ulcer rates. The
VBTS approach was implemented in VHA and presents a promising model for patient safety
improvement.
Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES
1. Lyder CH. The benefits of a multi-disciplinary approach to the prevention and treatment of pressure
ulcers. http://http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2011/08/the-benefits-of-a-multi-disciplinary-
approach-to-the-prevention-and-treatment-of-pressure-ulcers.aspx. Published 2011. Accessed August 1,
2016.

 Cited Here...

2. Bergquist-Beringer S, Dong L, He J, Dunton N. Pressure ulcers and prevention among acute care
hospitals in the United States. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(9):404–414.

 Cited Here... |
 PubMed

3. Lyder CH, Wang Y, Metersky M, et al Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: results from the national
Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(9):1603–1608.

 Cited Here... |
 View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef


 4. Mallah Z, Nassar N, Kurdahi Badr L. The effectiveness of a pressure ulcer intervention program on the
prevalence of hospital acquired pressure ulcers: controlled before and after study. Appl Nurs Res.
2015;28(2):106–113.

 Cited Here... |
 PubMed | CrossRef


5. Sullivan N, Schoelles KM. Preventing in-facility pressure ulcers as a patient safety strategy: a
systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 Pt 2):410–416.

 Cited Here... |
 View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef



6. Dellefield M, Morgan S. Building interprofessional partnerships: VHA's Pressure Ulcer Prevention

Initiative. In: Kritek R, ed. Realizing the Future of Nursing: VA Nurses Tell Their Story. Washington, DC:
US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration; 2015.

 Cited Here...

7. Chou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C, et al Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic
comparative effectiveness review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(1):28–38.

 Cited Here... |
 View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef



8. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The Breakthrough Series: IHI's Collaborative Model for Achieving
Breakthrough Improvement. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2003.

 Cited Here...

9. Kilo CM. A framework for collaborative improvement: lessons from the Institute for Healthcare
Improvement's Breakthrough Series. Qual Manag Health Care. 1998;6(4):1–13.

 Cited Here... |
 View Full Text | PubMed


10. Ovretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, et al Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health
Care. 2002;11(4):345–351.

 Cited Here...

11. Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, van Everdingen JJ, Huijsman R, Grol RP. Evidence for the impact of
quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1491–1494.

 Cited Here... |
 View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef



12. Zubkoff L, Neily J, Mills PD, et al Using a virtual breakthrough series collaborative to reduce
postoperative respiratory failure in 16 Veterans Health Administration hospitals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient
Saf. 2014;40(1):11–20.

 Cited Here... |
 PubMed

13. Zubkoff L, Neily J, King B, et al Virtual breakthrough Series, part 1: preventing catheter-associated
urinary tract infection and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in the veterans health administration. Jt
Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42(11):485–498.

 Cited Here... |
 PubMed

14. Zubkoff L, Neily J, Quigley P, et al Virtual breakthrough series, part 2: improving fall prevention
practices in the veterans health administration. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42(11):497–517.

 Cited Here... |
 PubMed

15. Pressure Ulcer Prevention. http://vaww.w2k8.intranet.staging.va.gov/nursing/pup.asp. Published

2015. Accessed July 16, 2015.

 Cited Here...

16. Advancing Excellence in America's Nursing Homes Campaign.

https://http://www.nhqualitycampaign.org. Accessed August 5, 2016.

 Cited Here...

17. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ quality indicators.
http://http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov./. Accessed August 5, 2016.

 Cited Here...

18. Root Cause Analysis Tools. http://http://www.patientsafety.va.gov/docs/joe/rca_tools_2_15.pdf.

Published 2015. Accessed August 5, 2016.

 Cited Here...

19. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are
needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267–277.

 Cited Here... |
 PubMed | CrossRef

evidence-based nursing; pressure ulcer; pressure ulcer prevention; quality improvement; virtual
breakthrough series collaborative