Dataset Information

Putting measurement on a diet: development of a core set of indicators for quality improvement in the ICU using a Delphi method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The number and efficacy of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is debatable. This study aimed to select a consensus-based core set of indicators for effective quality improvement in the ICU.

Methods

A Delphi study with a panel of intensivists, ICU nurses, and former ICU patients or relatives (n = 34) from general, teaching, and academic hospitals. Panelists completed a questionnaire in which they scored 69 preselected quality indicators on relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. Indicators were categorized using the rated relevance score into: 'accepted, 'equivocal' and 'excluded'. Questionnaire results were discussed in focus groups to reach consensus on the final set.

Results

Response rates for the questionnaire and focus groups were 100 and 68%, respectively. Consensus was reached on a final set of 17 quality indicators including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Other quality indicators relate to the organization and outcome of ICU care, including safety culture, ICU standardized mortality ratio, and the process indicator 'learning from and improving after serious incidents'.

Conclusions

ICU clinicians and former patients and relatives developed a consensus-based core set of ICU quality indicators that is relatively short but comprehensive and particularly tailored to end-users needs.

SUBMITTER: Zegers M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9255461 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundsFew paediatric and perinatal quality indicators (QIs) have been developed in the Japanese setting, and the quality of care is not assured or validated. The aim of this study was to develop QIs in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database and confirm the feasibility and applicability of the indicators using a single-site practice test.MethodsWe used a RAND-modified Delphi method that integrates evidence review with expert consensus development. QI candidates were generated from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available in English or Japanese and existing QIs in nine selected paediatric or perinatal conditions. Consensus building was based on independent panel ratings. The performance of QIs was retrospectively assessed using data from an administrative database at the National Children's Hospital. Data between April 2018 and March 2019 were used, while data between April 2019 and March 2021 were also used for selected condition, considering the small number of patients. Each QI was calculated as follows: number of times the indicator was met/number of participants×100.ResultsFrom the literature review conducted between 2010 and 2020, 124 CPGs and 193 existing indicators were identified to generate QI candidates. Through the consensus-building process, 133 QI candidates were assessed and 79 QIs were accepted. The practice test revealed wide variations in the process-level performance of QIs in four categories: patient safety: median 43.9% (IQR 16.7%-85.6%), general paediatrics: median 98.8% (IQR 84.2%-100%), advanced paediatrics: median 94.4% (IQR 46.0%-100%) and advanced obstetrics: median 80.3% (IQR 59.6%-100%).ConclusionsWe established 79 QIs for paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database that can be applied to hospitals nationwide. The practice test confirmed the measurability of the developed QIs. Benchmarking these QIs will be an attractive approach to improving the quality of care.

Project description:BackgroundRenin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are not re-initiated for almost a quarter of patients who suffered acute kidney injury 6 months after discharge. This discontinuation might be partly explained by the nephrotoxicity of these medications, yet they remain of benefit, especially for patients with heart failure.ObjectiveTo determine the factors deemed by clinicians to influence RASi re-initiation and set threshold values for important safety parameters.DesignThree-round modified online Delphi survey.SettingThe study was conducted in Quebec, Canada.ParticipantsTwenty clinicians from nephrology, intensive care medicine, and internal medicine.MeasurementsThe factors' importance was rated on 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from "not important" to "very important" by the panelists.MethodsWe conducted a brief literature review to uncover possible influencing factors followed by a 3-round modified Delphi survey to establish a consensus on the importance of these factors.ResultsWe recruited 20 clinicians (7 nephrologists, 3 internists, and 10 intensive care physicians). We created a list of 25 factors, 15 of which met consensus. Eleven of these factors, including serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, and acute kidney injury (AKI) stage, were deemed as important while 4, such as responsibility ambiguity and absence of feedback, were deemed as not important. The majority of the 10 factors which did not meet consensus were related to the clinical setting, such as a pharmacist follow-up and the required time to ensure optimal RASi re-initiation.LimitationsQuebec clinicians' agreement might not reflect the opinion of the rest of Canada. The survey measures clinicians' belief rather than their actual practice.ConclusionRenin-angiotensin system inhibitors re-initiation is a rather complex concept which encompasses several factors. Our research uncovered some of these factors which may be used to develop guidelines on optimal RASi re-initiation.