Peter Pronovost

Prof. Peter Pronovost


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2003 in Journal of Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PPPeter Pronovost
Peter Pronovost
SBSean Berenholtz
Sean Berenholtz
TDTodd Dorman
Todd Dorman
PLPam A. Lipsett
Pam A. Lipsett
TSTerri Simmonds
Terri Simmonds
CHCarol Haraden
Carol Haraden

6 October 2008 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PPPeter Pronovost
Peter Pronovost
SBSean M Berenholtz
Sean M Berenholtz
DNDale M Needham
Dale M Needham
Changes that can improve patients’ health are often difficult to get into practice, even when backed by good evidence. Peter Pronovost, Sean Berenholtz, and Dale Needham describe a collaborative model that has been shown to work

4 February 2010 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PPPeter Pronovost
Peter Pronovost
CGChristine A Goeschel
Christine A Goeschel
ECElizabeth Colantuoni
Elizabeth Colantuoni
SWSam Watson
Sam Watson
LLLisa H Lubomski
Lisa H Lubomski
DNDale Needham
Dale Needham
Objectives To evaluate the extent to which intensive care units participating in the initial Keystone ICU project sustained reductions in rates of catheter related bloodstream infections. Design Collaborative cohort study to implement and evaluate interventions to improve patients’ safety. Setting Intensive care units predominantly in Michigan, USA. Intervention Conceptual model aimed at improving clinicians’ use of five evidence based recommendations to reduce rates of catheter related bloodstream infections rates, with measurement and feedback of infection rates. During the sustainability period, intensive care unit teams were instructed to integrate this intervention into staff orientation, collect monthly data from hospital infection control staff, and report infection rates to appropriate stakeholders. Main outcome measures Quarterly rate of catheter related bloodstream infections per 1000 catheter days during the sustainability period (19-36 months after implementation of the intervention). Results Ninety (87%) of the original 103 intensive care units participated, reporting 1532 intensive care unit months of data and 300 310 catheter days during the sustainability period. The mean and median rates of catheter related bloodstream infection decreased from 7.7 and 2.7 (interquartile range 0.6-4.8) at baseline to 1.3 and 0 (0-2.4) at 16-18 months and to 1.1 and 0 (0.0-1.2) at 34-36 months post-implementation. Multilevel regression analysis showed that incidence rate ratios decreased from 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.88) at 0-3 months to 0.38 (0.26 to 0.56) at 16-18 months and 0.34 (0.24-0.48) at 34-36 months post-implementation. During the sustainability period, the mean bloodstream infection rate did not significantly change from the initial 18 month post-implementation period (−1%, 95% confidence interval −9% to 7%). Conclusions The reduced rates of catheter related bloodstream infection achieved in the initial 18 month post-implementation period were sustained for an additional 18 months as participating intensive care units integrated the intervention into practice. Broad use of this intervention with achievement of similar results could substantially reduce the morbidity and costs associated with catheter related bloodstream infections.

1 August 2005 in Quality and Safety in Health Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PPPeter Pronovost
Peter Pronovost
BSB Sexton
B Sexton
“The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” Latsu

1 December 2003 in Journal of Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PPPeter Pronovost
Peter Pronovost
BWBrad Weast
Brad Weast
MSMandalyn Schwarz
Mandalyn Schwarz
RWRhonda M Wyskiel
Rhonda M Wyskiel
DPDonna Prow
Donna Prow
PLPamela Lipsett
Pamela Lipsett

1 January 2009 in Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BWBradford D Winters
Bradford D Winters
AGAyse P Gurses
Ayse P Gurses
HLHarold Lehmann
Harold Lehmann
JSJ Bryan Sexton
J Bryan Sexton
CRCarlyle J Rampersad
Carlyle J Rampersad
PPPeter Pronovost
Peter Pronovost
Checklists are common tools used in many industries. Unfortunately, their adoption in the field of medicine has been limited to equipment operations or part of specific algorithms. Yet they have tremendous potential to improve patient outcomes by democratizing knowledge and helping ensure that all patients receive evidence-based best practices and safe high-quality care. Checklist adoption has been slowed by a variety of factors, including provider resistance, delays in knowledge dissemination and integration, limited methodology to guide development and maintenance, and lack of effective technical strategies to make them available and easy to use. In this article, we explore some of the principles and possible strategies to further develop and encourage the implementation of checklists into medical practice. We describe different types of checklists using examples and explore the benefits they offer to improve care. We suggest methods to create checklists and offer suggestions for how we might apply them, using some examples from our own experience, and finally, offer some possible directions for future research.