Y E Emond1, J J Stienen2, H C Wollersheim2, G J Bloo3, J Damen4, G P Westert2, M A Boermeester5, M A Pols6, H Calsbeek2, A P Wolff4. 1. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, PO Box 9101, 114 IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands yvette.emond@radboudumc.nl. 2. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, PO Box 9101, 114 IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands. 3. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, PO Box 9101, 114 IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists (Kennisinstituut van Medisch Specialisten), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To improve perioperative patient safety, hospitals are implementing evidence-based perioperative safety guidelines. To facilitate this process, it is important to provide insight into current practice. For this purpose, we aimed to develop patient safety indicators. METHODS: The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop a set of patient safety indicators based on the perioperative guidelines. First, a core group of experts systematically selected recommendations from the guidelines. Then, an expert panel of representative professionals appraised the recommendations against safety criteria, prioritized them and reached consensus about 11 patient safety indicators. Measurability, applicability, improvement potential (based on current practice) and discriminatory capacity of each indicator were pilot tested in eight hospitals. RESULTS: Seven structure, two process and two outcome indicators were developed covering the entire perioperative care process. Most indicators showed good applicability (N=11), improvement potential (N=6) and discriminatory capacity (N=7). Four indicators were difficult to measure. Improvement opportunities concerned the use of perioperative stops, timely administration of antibiotics, availability of protocols on perioperative anticoagulants and on prospective risk analysis of medical equipment, presence of a surveillance system for postoperative wound infections, and a morbidity and mortality registration. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic, stepwise method 11 patient safety indicators were developed for internal assessment, monitoring and improvement of the perioperative care process. There was large variation in guideline adherence between and within hospitals, identifying opportunities for improvement in the quality of perioperative care.
BACKGROUND: To improve perioperative patient safety, hospitals are implementing evidence-based perioperative safety guidelines. To facilitate this process, it is important to provide insight into current practice. For this purpose, we aimed to develop patient safety indicators. METHODS: The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop a set of patient safety indicators based on the perioperative guidelines. First, a core group of experts systematically selected recommendations from the guidelines. Then, an expert panel of representative professionals appraised the recommendations against safety criteria, prioritized them and reached consensus about 11 patient safety indicators. Measurability, applicability, improvement potential (based on current practice) and discriminatory capacity of each indicator were pilot tested in eight hospitals. RESULTS: Seven structure, two process and two outcome indicators were developed covering the entire perioperative care process. Most indicators showed good applicability (N=11), improvement potential (N=6) and discriminatory capacity (N=7). Four indicators were difficult to measure. Improvement opportunities concerned the use of perioperative stops, timely administration of antibiotics, availability of protocols on perioperative anticoagulants and on prospective risk analysis of medical equipment, presence of a surveillance system for postoperative wound infections, and a morbidity and mortality registration. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic, stepwise method 11 patient safety indicators were developed for internal assessment, monitoring and improvement of the perioperative care process. There was large variation in guideline adherence between and within hospitals, identifying opportunities for improvement in the quality of perioperative care.
Authors: Yvette E J J M Emond; André P Wolff; Yvonne A S Peters; Gerrit J A Bloo; Gert P Westert; Johan Damen; Hiske Calsbeek; Hub C Wollersheim Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2020-05-27
Authors: S Ziemann; M Coburn; R Rossaint; J Van Waesberghe; H Bürkle; M Fries; M Henrich; D Henzler; T Iber; J Karst; O Kunitz; R Löb; W Meißner; P Meybohm; B Mierke; F Pabst; G Schaelte; J Schiff; M Soehle; M Winterhalter; A Kowark Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 1.041