OBJECTIVE: We present a score for assessing the quality of ICU care in terms of structure and process, based on bibliographic review, expert consultations, field test, analysis, and final consensus, and analyze its initial application in the field. DESIGN AND SETTING: This feasibility and observational study was conducted within the framework of a French regional clinical research project (NosoQual); 40 ICUs were visited and assessed between November 2002 and March 2003 according to standardized procedures. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The grid consisted of 95 variables. The overall score derived from seven independent quality dimensions: human resources, architecture, safety and environment, management of documentation, patient care management, risk management of infections and evaluation, and surveillance. The average level of achievement of the scores varied from 48% to 63% of theoretical maxima. Variability in the individual dimensional subscores was greater than that of the overall score (CV=15). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation this scoring system encounters the limitation of the absence of a "gold standard." However, this is counterbalanced by the rigorous design methodology, the characteristic strengths of the quality dimensions. The survey also highlights also feasibility and the potential interest for specific tools for the assessment of ICUs.
OBJECTIVE: We present a score for assessing the quality of ICU care in terms of structure and process, based on bibliographic review, expert consultations, field test, analysis, and final consensus, and analyze its initial application in the field. DESIGN AND SETTING: This feasibility and observational study was conducted within the framework of a French regional clinical research project (NosoQual); 40 ICUs were visited and assessed between November 2002 and March 2003 according to standardized procedures. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The grid consisted of 95 variables. The overall score derived from seven independent quality dimensions: human resources, architecture, safety and environment, management of documentation, patient care management, risk management of infections and evaluation, and surveillance. The average level of achievement of the scores varied from 48% to 63% of theoretical maxima. Variability in the individual dimensional subscores was greater than that of the overall score (CV=15). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation this scoring system encounters the limitation of the absence of a "gold standard." However, this is counterbalanced by the rigorous design methodology, the characteristic strengths of the quality dimensions. The survey also highlights also feasibility and the potential interest for specific tools for the assessment of ICUs.
Authors: Michael G Hughes; Heather L Evans; Tae W Chong; Robert L Smith; Daniel P Raymond; Shawn J Pelletier; Timothy L Pruett; Robert G Sawyer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gitte Y Larsen; Michelle Schober; Anthony Fabio; Stephen R Wisniewski; Mary Jo C Grant; Nadeem Shafi; Tellen D Bennett; Deborah Hirtz; Michael J Bell Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Heljä Lundgrén-Laine; Elina Kontio; Juha Perttilä; Heikki Korvenranta; Jari Forsström; Sanna Salanterä Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Jan-Peter Braun; Oliver Kumpf; Maria Deja; Alexander Brinkmann; Gernot Marx; Frank Bloos; Arnold Kaltwasser; Rolf Dubb; Elke Muhl; Clemens Greim; Hanswerner Bause; Norbert Weiler; Ines Chop; Christian Waydhas; Claudia Spies Journal: Ger Med Sci Date: 2013-07-16
Authors: Alexandre Guilherme Ribeiro de Carvalho; Ana Paula Pierre de Moraes; Lilian Maria Sobreira Tanaka; Renato Vieira Gomes; Antônio Augusto Moura da Silva Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2017-06-26
Authors: Alexandre Guilherme Ribeiro de Carvalho; Ana Paula Pierre de Moraes; Ana Cláudia Pinho de Carvalho; Antônio Augusto Moura da Silva Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2019-05-30
Authors: Lia I Losonczy; Alfred Papali; Sean Kivlehan; Emilie J Calvello Hynes; Georgina Calderon; Adam Laytin; Vanessa Moll; Ahmed Al Hazmi; Mohammed Alsabri; Diptesh Aryal; Vincent Atua; Torben Becker; Nicole Benzoni; Enrico Dippenaar; Edrist Duneant; Biruk Girma; Naomi George; Preeti Gupta; Michael Jaung; Bonaventure Hollong; Diulu Kabongo; Rebecca J Kruisselbrink; Dennis Lee; Augusto Maldonado; Jesse May; Maxwell Osei-Ampofo; Yasein Omer Osman; Christian Owoo; Shada A Rouhani; Hendry Sawe; Daniel Schnorr; Gentle S Shrestha; Aparajita Sohoni; Menbeu Sultan; Andrea G Tenner; Hanan Yusuf; Neill K Adhikari; Srinvas Murthy; Niranjan Kissoon; John Marshall; Abdo Khoury; Abdelouahab Bellou; Lee Wallis; Teri Reynolds Journal: Ann Glob Health Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 2.462
Authors: Märit Halmin; Ghada Abou Mourad; Adam Ghneim; Alissar Rady; Tim Baker; Johan Von Schreeb Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 17.440