Quality indicators in intensive care medicine for Germany - third edition 2017.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kumpf O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541336 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Quality indicators in intensive care medicine for Germany - third edition 2017.
Kumpf Oliver O Braun Jan-Peter JP Brinkmann Alexander A Bause Hanswerner H Bellgardt Martin M Bloos Frank F Dubb Rolf R Greim Clemens C Kaltwasser Arnold A Marx Gernot G Riessen Reimer R Spies Claudia C Weimann Jörg J Wöbker Gabriele G Muhl Elke E Waydhas Christian C
German medical science : GMS e-journal 20170801
Quality improvement in medicine is depending on measurement of relevant quality indicators. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2013 underwent a scheduled evaluation after three years. There were major changes in several indicators but also some indicators were changed only minimally. The focus on treatment processes like <i>ward rounds</i>, <i>management of analgesia and sedation</i>, <i>mecha ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Quality indicators are key elements of quality management. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2010 were recently evaluated when their validity time expired after two years. Overall one indicator was replaced and further three were in part changed. The former indicator I "elevation of head of bed" was replaced by the indicator "Daily multi-professional ward rounds with the documentation of daily therapy goals" and added to the indicator IV "Weaning and other measures to prevent ventilator associated pneumonias (short: Weaning/VAP Bundle)" (VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia) which aims at the reduction of VAP incidence. The indicator VIII "Documentation of structured relative-/next-of-kin communication" was refined. The indicator X "Direction of the ICU by a specially trained certified intensivist with no other clinical duties in a department" was also updated according to recent study results. These updated quality indicators are part of the Peer Review in intensive care medicine. The next update of the quality indicators is due in 2016.
| S-EPMC3728642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In order to improve quality (of therapy), one has to know, evaluate and make transparent, one's own daily processes. This process of reflection can be supported by the presentation of key data or indicators, in which the real as-is state can be represented. Quality indicators are required in order to depict the as-is state.Quality indicators reflect adherence to specific quality measures. Continuing registration of an indicator is useless once it becomes irrelevant or adherence is 100%. In the field of intensive care medicine, studies of quality indicators have been performed in some countries. Quality indicators relevant for medical quality and outcome in critically ill patients have been identified by following standardized approaches.Different German societies of intensive care medicine have finally agreed on 10 core quality indicators that will be valid for two years and are currently recommended in German intensive care units (ICUs).
| S-EPMC2975264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare providers working for cardiovascular intensive care often face challenges and they play an essential role in palliative care and end-of-life care because of the high mortality rates in the cardiac intensive care unit. Unfortunately, there are several barriers to integrating palliative care, cardiovascular care, and intensive care. The main reasons are as follows: cardiovascular disease-specific trajectories differ from cancer, there is uncertainty associated with treatments and diagnoses, aggressive treatments are necessary for symptom relief, and there is ethical dilemma regarding withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Quality indicators that can iterate the minimum requirements of each medical discipline could be used to overcome these barriers and effectively practice palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Unfortunately, there are no specific quality indicators for palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. A few indicators and their domains are useful for understanding current palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Among them, several domains, such as symptom palliation, patient- and family-centered decision-making, continuity of care, and support for health care providers that are particularly important in cardiovascular intensive care.Historically, the motivation for using quality indicators is to summarize mechanisms for external accountability and verification, and formative mechanisms for quality improvement. Practically, when using quality indicators, it is necessary to check structural indicators in each healthcare service line, screen palliative care at the first visit, and integrate palliative care teams with other professionals. Finally, we would like to state that quality indicators in cardiovascular intensive care could be useful as an educational tool for practicing palliative care, understanding the minimum requirements, and as a basic structure for future discussions.
| S-EPMC8922808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To assess and improve the effectiveness of ICU care, in-hospital mortality rates are often used as principal quality indicator for benchmarking purposes. Two other often used, easily quantifiable, quality indicators to assess the efficiency of ICU care are based on readmission to the ICU and ICU length of stay. Our aim was to examine whether there is an association between case-mix adjusted outcome-based quality indicators in the general ICU population as well as within specific subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We included patients admitted in 2015 of all Dutch ICUs. We derived the standardized in-hospital mortality ratio (SMR); the standardized readmission ratio (SRR); and the standardized length of stay ratio (SLOSR). We expressed association through Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS:The SMR ranged from 0.6 to 1.5; the SRR ranged from 0.7 to 2.1; and the SLOSR ranged from 0.7 to 1.3. For the total ICU population we found no significant associations. We found a positive, non-significant, association between SMR and SLOSR for admissions with low-mortality risk, (r = 0.25; p = 0.024), and a negative association between these indicators for admissions with high-mortality risk (r = -0.49; p<0.001). CONCLUSION:Overall, we found no association at ICU population level. Differential associations were found between performance on mortality and length of stay within different risk strata. We recommend users of quality information to take these three outcome indicators into account when benchmarking ICUs as they capture different aspects of ICU performance. Furthermore, we suggest to report quality indicators for patient subgroups.
| S-EPMC5999279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEnd-of-life-decisions (EOLD) have become an important part of modern intensive care medicine. With increasing therapeutic possibilities on the one hand and many ICU-patients lacking decision making capacity or an advance directive on the other the decision making process is a major challenge on the intensive care unit (ICU). Currently, data are poor on factors associated with EOLD in Germany. In 2009, a new law on advance directives binding physicians and the patient's surrogate decision makers was enacted in Germany. So far it is unknown if this law influenced proceedings of EOLD making on the ICU.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on all deceased patients (n = 224) in a 22-bed surgical ICU of a German university medical center from 08/2008 to 09/2010. Patient characteristics were compared between patients with an EOLD and those without an EOLD. Patients with an EOLD admitted before and after change of legislation were compared with respect to frequencies of EOLD performance as well as advance directive rates.ResultsIn total, 166 (74.1%) of deaths occurred after an EOLD. Compared to patients without an EOLD, comorbidities, ICU severity scores, and organ replacement technology did not differ significantly. EOLDs were shared within the caregiverteam and with the patient's surrogate decision makers. After law enacting, no differences in EOLD performance or frequency of advance directives (8.9% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.807) were observed except an increase of documentation efforts associated with EOLDs (18.7% vs. 43.6%; p<0.001).ConclusionsIn our ICU EOLD proceedings were performed patient-individually. But EOLDs follow a standard of shared decision making within the caregiverteam and the patient's surrogate decision makers. Enacting a law on advance directives has not affected the decision making-process in EOLDs nor has it affected population's advance care planning habits. However, it has led to increased EOLD-associated documentation on the ICU.Trial registration[corrected] ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01294189.
| S-EPMC3462175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Strained intensive care unit (ICU) capacity represents a fundamental supply-demand mismatch in ICU resources. Strain is likely to be influenced by a range of factors; however, there has been no systematic evaluation of the spectrum of measures that may indicate strain on ICU capacity.We performed a systematic review to identify indicators of strained capacity. A comprehensive peer-reviewed search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science Core Collection was performed along with selected grey literature sources. We included studies published in English after 1990. We included studies that: (1) focused on ICU settings; (2) included description of a quality or performance measure; and (3) described strained capacity. Retrieved studies were screened, selected and extracted in duplicate. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Analysis was descriptive.Of 5297 studies identified in our search; 51 fulfilled eligibility. Most were cohort studies (n = 39; 76.5%), five (9.8%) were case-control, three (5.8%) were cross-sectional, two (3.9%) were modeling studies, one (2%) was a correlational study, and one (2%) was a quality improvement project. Most observational studies were high quality. Sixteen measures designed to indicate strain were identified 110 times, and classified as structure (n = 4, 25%), process (n = 7, 44%) and outcome (n = 5, 31%) indicators, respectively. The most commonly identified indicators of strain were ICU acuity (n = 21; 19.1% [process]), ICU readmission (n = 18; 16.4% [outcome]), after-hours discharge (n = 15; 13.6% [process]) and ICU census (n = 13; 11.8% [structure]). There was substantial heterogeneity in the operational definitions used to define strain indicators across studies.We identified and characterized 16 indicators of strained ICU capacity across the spectrum of healthcare quality domains. Future work should aim to evaluate their implementation into practice and assess their value for evaluating strategies to mitigate strain.This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (March 27, 2015; CRD42015017931 ).
| S-EPMC5870068 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatients in intensive care units (ICUs) often require quality palliative care for relief from various types of suffering. To achieve quality palliative care, specific goals need to be identified, measured, and reported. The present study aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) for palliative care in ICUs, based on a systematic review and modified Delphi method, and test their feasibility by reviewing electronic medical record (EMR) data.MethodsThe current study was performed in two phases: the development of QIs using the modified Delphi method, and pilot-testing the quality of palliative care in ICUs based on EMR review. The pilot test included 262 patients admitted to the general or emergency ICU at a university hospital from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2019.ResultsA 28-item QI set for palliative care in ICUs was developed based on the consensus of 16 experts. The Delphi process resulted in low measurability ratings for two items: "Assessment of the patient's psychological distress" and "Assessment of the patient's spiritual and cultural practices." However, these items were determined to be important for quality care from the perspective of holistic assessment of distress and were adopted in the final version of the QI set. While the pilot test results indicated the feasibility of the developed QIs, they suggested that the frequency of care performance varied, and certain aspects of palliative care in ICUs needed to be improved, namely (1) regular pain assessment, (2) identification of the patient's advance directive and advance care planning for treatment, (3) conducting an interdisciplinary family conference on palliative care, and (4) assessment of psychological distress of family members.ConclusionsThe QI set, developed using the modified Delphi method and tested using EMR data, provided a tool for assessing the quality of palliative care in ICUs. In the two ICUs considered in this study, aspects of the palliative care process with a low performance frequency were identified, and further national surveys were recommended. It is necessary to conduct ongoing surveys at more facilities to improve the quality of palliative care in ICUs.
| S-EPMC10775577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe and to study its potential for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS:Our analysis was based on 2006 adult patients admitted to 54 ICUs between 2014 and 2018, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI study. Indicator scores were calculated as percentage adherence for structure and process indicators and as event rates or median scores for outcome indicators. Feasibility was quantified by the completeness of the variables. Discriminability was determined by the between-centre variation, estimated with a random effect regression model adjusted for case-mix severity and quantified by the median odds ratio (MOR). Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was determined by the median number of events per centre, using a cut-off of 10. RESULTS:A total of 26/42 indicators could be calculated from the CENTER-TBI database. Most quality indicators proved feasible to obtain with more than 70% completeness. Sub-optimal adherence was found for most quality indicators, ranging from 26 to 93% and 20 to 99% for structure and process indicators. Significant (p?<?0.001) between-centre variation was found in seven process and five outcome indicators with MORs ranging from 1.51 to 4.14. Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was generally high; five out of seven had less than 10 events per centre. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, nine structures, five processes, but none of the outcome indicators showed potential for quality improvement purposes for TBI patients in the ICU. Future research should focus on implementation efforts and continuous reevaluation of quality indicators. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, registered on August 06, 2014, with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).
| S-EPMC7057641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStarting in 2005, Germany's health law required hospital quality reports to be published every two years by all acute care hospitals. The reports were intended to help patients and physicians make informed choices of hospitals. However, while establishing the quality indicators that form the content of the reports, the information needs of the target groups were not explicitly taken into account. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine patient and physician opinion of the relevance of the reported quality indicators for choosing or referring to a hospital.MethodsConvenience samples of 50 patients and 50 physicians were asked to rate the understandability (patients), suitability (physicians) and relevance (both groups) of a set of 29 quality indicators. The set was drawn from the reports (24 indicators) and supplemented by five indicators commonly used in hospital quality reports. We analysed the differences in patient and physician ratings of relevance of all indicators by applying descriptive statistics, t-tests and Wilcoxon tests.ResultsOnly three indicators were considered not understandable by the interviewed patients and unsuitable by the interviewed physicians. The patients rated 19 indicators as highly or very relevant, whereas the physicians chose 15 indicators. The most relevant indicator for the patients was "qualification of doctors", and for the physicians "volume of specified surgical procedures". Patient and physician rankings of individual indicators differed for 25 indicators. However, three groups of indicators could be differentiated, in which the relevance ratings of patients and physicians differed only within the groups. Four of the five indicators that were added to the existing set of reported indicators ranked in the first or second group ("kindness of staff", "patient satisfaction", "recommendation", and "distance to place of living").ConclusionMost of the content of Germany's hospital quality reports seems to be useful for patients and physicians and influence their choice of hospitals. However, the target groups revealed that approximately one third of the indicators (mostly hospital structural characteristics), were not useful and hence could have been omitted from the reports. To enhance the usefulness of the reports, indicators on patient experiences should be added.
| S-EPMC2048956 | biostudies-literature