OBJECTIVES: To define a set of indicators that could be used to improve quality in intensive care medicine. METHODOLOGY: An European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Task Force on Quality and Safety identified all commonly used key quality indicators. This international Task Force consisted of 18 experts, all with a self-proclaimed interest in the area. Through a modified Delphi process seeking greater than 90% consensual agreement from this nominal group, the indicators were then refined through a series of iterative processes. RESULTS: A total of 111 indicators of quality were initially found, and these were consolidated into 102 separate items. After five discrete rounds of debate, these indicators were reduced to a subset of nine that all had greater than 90% agreement from the nominal group. These indicators can be used to describe the structures (3), processes (2) and outcomes (4) of intensive care. Across this international group, it was much more difficult to obtain consensual agreement on the indicators describing processes of care than on the structures and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This document contains nine indicators, all of which have a high level of consensual agreement from an international Task Force, which could be used to improve quality in routine intensive care practice.
OBJECTIVES: To define a set of indicators that could be used to improve quality in intensive care medicine. METHODOLOGY: An European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Task Force on Quality and Safety identified all commonly used key quality indicators. This international Task Force consisted of 18 experts, all with a self-proclaimed interest in the area. Through a modified Delphi process seeking greater than 90% consensual agreement from this nominal group, the indicators were then refined through a series of iterative processes. RESULTS: A total of 111 indicators of quality were initially found, and these were consolidated into 102 separate items. After five discrete rounds of debate, these indicators were reduced to a subset of nine that all had greater than 90% agreement from the nominal group. These indicators can be used to describe the structures (3), processes (2) and outcomes (4) of intensive care. Across this international group, it was much more difficult to obtain consensual agreement on the indicators describing processes of care than on the structures and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This document contains nine indicators, all of which have a high level of consensual agreement from an international Task Force, which could be used to improve quality in routine intensive care practice.
Authors: Peter J Pronovost; David A Thompson; Christine G Holzmueller; Lisa H Lubomski; Todd Dorman; Fern Dickman; Maureen Fahey; Donald M Steinwachs; Lilly Engineer; J Bryan Sexton; Albert W Wu; Laura L Morlock Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Dale M Needham; David A Thompson; Christine G Holzmueller; Todd Dorman; Lisa H Lubomski; Albert W Wu; Laura L Morlock; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Marc R de Leval; Angus McEwan; Nick Pigott; Martin J Elliott; Annette McQuillan; Carol MacDonald; Allan J Goldman Journal: Paediatr Anaesth Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.556
Authors: Ricard Ferrer; Antonio Artigas; Mitchell M Levy; Jesús Blanco; Gumersindo González-Díaz; José Garnacho-Montero; Jordi Ibáñez; Eduardo Palencia; Manuel Quintana; María Victoria de la Torre-Prados Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Brinkmann; J P Braun; R Riessen; R Dubb; A Kaltwasser; T M Bingold Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: Sabira Valiani; Romain Rigal; Henry T Stelfox; John Muscedere; Claudio M Martin; Peter Dodek; François Lamontagne; Robert Fowler; Afshan Gheshmy; Deborah J Cook; Alan J Forster; Paul C Hébert Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-06-21