Choosing Between Two Quality Improvement Priorities
You are the physician quality officer for a 200-bed hospital. Two problems compete for the same quality-improvement resources next year: (1) sepsis mortality, where the hospital's observed-to-expected ratio is 1.18 and the SEP-1 bundle compliance is 62%, and (2) surgical site infections in colorectal surgery, where the SSI rate is 4.8% versus a national benchmark of about 3%, with roughly 60 colorectal cases per year. The board quality committee has limited bandwidth and can sponsor only one major initiative. The CFO notes that sepsis penalties and SSI penalties both affect reimbursement, but sepsis is a larger dollar exposure. The chief of surgery is a strong advocate for the SSI program and sits on the board. Nursing leadership is stretched and cannot fully support both. You must recommend one initiative and a plan for the other.
1. How would you structure the decision between the two initiatives? What criteria and data would you use?
Read the worked answer
I would make the criteria explicit and pre-agreed so the decision is defensible and not personality-driven.
Criteria:
- Harm and volume: sepsis affects far more patients and carries higher mortality; 60 colorectal cases/year at a 4.8% rate is roughly 3 infections/year, a small absolute number but each is serious.
- Financial exposure: quantify both - sepsis mortality O/E and bundle compliance drive penalty and reputational risk; SSI affects colorectal bundle/penalty exposure. The CFO's dollar estimate should be verified, not assumed.
- Improvability: is there a known, evidence-based bundle with a track record? Sepsis bundle compliance at 62% suggests a large, addressable gap; SSI at 4.8% vs 3% is a smaller relative gap.
- Feasibility and sponsorship: who will do the work? Nursing bandwidth is the binding constraint, and the SSI program depends heavily on OR and perioperative nursing.
- Equity of attention: the chief of surgery's board seat is a governance consideration, not a clinical one; I would name it openly so it does not distort the decision.
I would present the criteria and the data to the committee and let the committee own the choice, with my recommendation attached.
2. Make your recommendation and justify it. Then describe how you would keep the non-selected initiative alive.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: sepsis first, with a structured, lower-intensity plan for SSI.
Justification:
- Sepsis has the larger population impact and mortality consequence, and the O/E of 1.18 with 62% bundle compliance indicates a substantial, addressable gap with a well-established bundle.
- The financial exposure is larger, per the CFO, and sepsis performance is highly visible to regulators and the board.
- Feasibility: sepsis improvement leans on ED and floor processes that can be driven with existing nursing structures; the SSI program's heavier OR/perioperative dependency is harder to resource when nursing is stretched.
Keeping SSI alive:
- Assign a surgeon-champion and a small working group to maintain the existing SSI bundle (appropriate prophylaxis, glucose control, normothermia, skin prep) without a major QI project.
- Continue SSI surveillance and reporting so the rate stays visible.
- Set a trigger: if the SSI rate rises above a defined threshold, escalate to a full initiative.
- Revisit at mid-year; if sepsis gains stabilize, redirect resources to SSI.
This respects the chief of surgery's concern without splitting scarce resources.
3. The chief of surgery pushes back, arguing that a 4.8% SSI rate is a patient-safety failure and that sepsis is 'everyone's problem, so no one's.' How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
I would validate the concern rather than dismiss it - the SSI rate is a real safety problem - and then address the governance argument directly.
- On 'everyone's problem': that is exactly why sepsis needs a sponsored, accountable owner with a named executive and a dashboard. The critique is an argument for structure, not against the initiative.
- On patient safety: both are safety problems; the question is where limited resources produce the most good. I would offer the absolute numbers (roughly 3 SSIs/year vs. the larger sepsis population) transparently and let the committee weigh them.
- On the board seat: I would note, respectfully, that a sponsor's advocacy is valuable but that the decision criteria were set in advance; if the committee overrides the recommendation, I would document the rationale so the decision is transparent.
- Compromise: offer the surgeon-champion role and a defined escalation trigger, so SSI has an owner and a visible metric even without the major project.
My goal is a decision the committee can defend, not a win over the chief of surgery.