Pieter Hoste1, Patrick Ferdinande2, Dirk Vogelaers3, Kris Vanhaecht4, Eric Hoste5, Xavier Rogiers6, Kristof Eeckloo7, Koenraad Vandewoude8. 1. Department of General Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Intensive Care, General Hospital Sint-Lucas Ghent, Groenebriel 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: piehoste.hoste@ugent.be. 2. Surgical and Transplantation ICU, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: patrick.ferdinande@uzleuven.be. 3. Department of General Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: dirk.vogelaers@ugent.be. 4. Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; Department of Quality Management, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; European Pathway Association, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: kris.vanhaecht@med.kuleuven.be. 5. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO), Egmontstraat 5, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: eric.hoste@ugent.be. 6. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Transplant Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: xavier.rogiers@ugent.be. 7. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: kristof.eeckloo@ugent.be. 8. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: koenraad.vandewoude@ugent.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guideline adherence for the management of a donor after brain death (DBD) is largely unknown. This study aimed to perform an importance-performance analysis of prioritized key interventions (KIs) by linking guideline adherence rates to expert consensus ratings for the management of a DBD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional multicenter study was performed in 21 Belgian ICUs. A retrospective review of patient records of adult utilized DBDs between 2013 and 2016 used 67 KIs to describe adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients were included. Thirty-five of 67 KIs had a high level of adherence congruent to a high expert panel rating of importance. Nineteen of 67 KIs had a low level of adherence in spite of a high level of importance according to expert consensus. However, inadequate documentation proved an important issue, hampering true guideline adherence assessment. Adherence ranged between 3 and 100% for single KI items and on average, patients received 72% of the integrated expert panel recommended care set. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence to an expert panel predefined care set in DBD donor management proved moderate leaving substantial room for improvement. An importance-performance analysis can be used to improve implementation and documentation of guidelines.
PURPOSE: Guideline adherence for the management of a donor after brain death (DBD) is largely unknown. This study aimed to perform an importance-performance analysis of prioritized key interventions (KIs) by linking guideline adherence rates to expert consensus ratings for the management of a DBD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional multicenter study was performed in 21 Belgian ICUs. A retrospective review of patient records of adult utilized DBDs between 2013 and 2016 used 67 KIs to describe adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients were included. Thirty-five of 67 KIs had a high level of adherence congruent to a high expert panel rating of importance. Nineteen of 67 KIs had a low level of adherence in spite of a high level of importance according to expert consensus. However, inadequate documentation proved an important issue, hampering true guideline adherence assessment. Adherence ranged between 3 and 100% for single KI items and on average, patients received 72% of the integrated expert panel recommended care set. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence to an expert panel predefined care set in DBD donor management proved moderate leaving substantial room for improvement. An importance-performance analysis can be used to improve implementation and documentation of guidelines.
Authors: Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Alberto Sandiumenge; Julien Charpentier; John A Kellum; Alan M Gaffney; Francesco Procaccio; Glauco A Westphal Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 17.440