Dataset Information

Do practicing clinicians agree with expert ratings of neonatal intensive care unit quality measures?

ABSTRACT: To assess the level of agreement when selecting quality measures for inclusion in a composite index of neonatal intensive care quality (Baby-MONITOR) between two panels: one comprised of academic researchers (Delphi) and another comprised of academic and clinical neonatologists (clinician).In a modified Delphi process, a panel rated 28 quality measures. We assessed clinician agreement with the Delphi panel by surveying a sample of 48 neonatal intensive care practitioners. We asked the clinician group to indicate their level of agreement with the Delphi panel for each measure using a five-point scale (much too high, slightly too high, reasonable, slightly too low and much too low). In addition, we asked clinicians to select measures for inclusion in the Baby-MONITOR based on a yes or no vote and a pre-specified two-thirds majority for inclusion.In all, 23 (47.9%) of the clinicians responded to the survey. We found high levels of agreement between the Delphi and clinician panels, particularly across measures selected for the Baby-MONITOR. Clinicians selected the same nine measures for inclusion in the composite as the Delphi panel. For these nine measures, 74% of clinicians indicated that the Delphi panel rating was 'reasonable'.Practicing clinicians agree with an expert panel on the measures that should be included in the Baby-MONITOR, enhancing face validity.

SUBMITTER: Kowalkowski M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3963391 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do practicing clinicians agree with expert ratings of neonatal intensive care unit quality measures?

Kowalkowski M M Gould J B JB Bose C C Petersen L A LA Profit J J

Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association 20120112 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the level of agreement when selecting quality measures for inclusion in a composite index of neonatal intensive care quality (Baby-MONITOR) between two panels: one comprised of academic researchers (Delphi) and another comprised of academic and clinical neonatologists (clinician).<h4>Study design</h4>In a modified Delphi process, a panel rated 28 quality measures. We assessed clinician agreement with the Delphi panel by surveying a sample of 48 neonatal intensive care ...[more]

PMID: 22241483

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Preterm birth is a risk factor for early experience of pain. Despite advances in neonatal care, evidence‐based knowledge of the importance of adequate pain management and strong international guidelines for assessment and treatment of neonatal pain, only 10% of sick term and preterm infants were assessed for pain and stress on a daily basis. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project is evaluation of implemented guidelines for pain assessment and management, and increased parental involvement in a Norwegian single‐family room NICU. Method: The different steps of the project entailed translation of the English version of COMFORTneo, development and implementation of guidelines with flowcharts for pain management, and pain assessment certification of the interprofessional staff. Part two of the project is supervision of the interprofessional staff in parental involvement in stress‐ and painful procedures. Our study showed that one year after implementation, 88.8% of the COMFORTneo assessments were performed according to the pain management guidelines. The staff used the flowcharts to assess, treat and reassess pain and stress. There was a high interrater reliability with linearly weighted Cohen's kappa values ranging from 0.81 to 0.95, with a median of 0.90. In addition, our study showed increased parental involvement in procedures, from 50.3% before to 82.3% after the quality improvement project. The success of this quality improvement project is explained by systematic use of flowcharts and implemented guidelines for pain management, interprofessional collaboration, and cultural change agents. Theoretical lectures and practical bedside supervision to interprofessional staff increased parental involvement in stress‐ and painful procedures. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project is evaluation of implemented guidelines for pain assessment and management and increased parental involvement in a Norwegian single‐family room (SFR) NICU. The main steps were translation and implementation of the COMFORTneo scale and development of flowcharts and pain management guidelines. The study showed high compliance to guidelines, high COMFORTneo assessment inter‐rater reliability, and increased parental involvement in procedures.

Project description:Rationale: Determining when an intensive care unit (ICU) patient is ready for discharge to the ward is a complex daily challenge for any ICU care team. Patients who experience unplanned readmissions to the ICU have increased mortality, length of stay, and cost compared with those not readmitted during their hospital stay. The accuracy of clinician prediction for ICU readmission is unknown.Objectives: To determine the accuracy of ICU physicians and nurses for predicting ICU readmissionsMethods: We conducted a prospective study in the medical ICU of an academic hospital from October 2015 to September 2017. After daily rounding for patients being transferred to the ward, ICU clinicians (nurses, residents, fellows, and attendings) were asked to report the likelihood of readmission within 48 hours (using a 1-10 scale, with 10 being "extremely likely"). The accuracy of the clinician prediction score (1-10) was assessed for all clinicians and by clinician type using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting the primary outcome, which was ICU readmission within 48 hours of ICU discharge.Results: A total of 2,833 surveys was collected for 938 ICU-to-ward transfers, of which 40 (4%) were readmitted to the ICU within 48 hours of transfer. The median clinician likelihood of readmission score was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). When physician and nurse likelihood scores were combined, the median clinician likelihood score had an AUC of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.78) for predicting ICU readmission within 48 hours. Nurses were significantly more accurate than interns at predicting 48-hour ICU readmission (AUC, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64-0.82] vs. AUC, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49-0.71]; P = 0.03). All other pairwise comparisons were not significantly different for predicting ICU readmission within 48 hours (P > 0.05 for all comparisons).Conclusions: We found that all clinicians surveyed in our ICU, regardless of the level of experience or clinician type, had only fair accuracy for predicting ICU readmission. Further research is needed to determine if clinical decision support tools would provide prognostic value above and beyond clinical judgment for determining who is ready for ICU discharge.

Dataset Information

Do practicing clinicians agree with expert ratings of neonatal intensive care unit quality measures?

Publications

Do practicing clinicians agree with expert ratings of neonatal intensive care unit quality measures?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets