Oleksa G Rewa1, Ashita Tolwani2, Theresa Mottes3, Luis A Juncos4, Claudio Ronco5, Kianoush Kashani6, Mitchell Rosner7, Michael Haase8, John Kellum9, Sean M Bagshaw10. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: rewa@ualberta.ca. 2. Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. Electronic address: atolwani@uab.edu. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: tamottes@texaschildrens.org. 4. Division of Nephrology, Central Arkansas Veterans' Healthcare System, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. Electronic address: LJuncos@uams.edu. 5. Division of Nephrology, St. Bartolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy. Electronic address: cronco@goldnet.it. 6. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: Kashani.Kianoush@mayo.edu. 7. Division of Nephrology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. Electronic address: MHR9R@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu. 8. Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, ST, Germany; MVZ Diaverum, Potsdam, Germany. Electronic address: michael.haase@med.ovgu.de. 9. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: kellum@pitt.edu. 10. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: bagshaw@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is wide variation in the practice of acute renal replacement therapy (RRT). Quality of care is suboptimal, and substantial knowledge-to-care gaps need to be addressed. The quality of care for patients receiving acute RRT has been recognized as a clinical and research priority. Quality indicators (QIs) can be implemented to measure the quality of care received by patients and further be used as targets for continuous quality improvement initiatives focused on the prescription, delivery, and monitoring of acute RRT care. METHODS: The 22nd ADQI meeting was held in San Diego, USA, from October 28th to 30th 2018. Prior to the meeting, a literature review was conducted, and 3 teleconferences were held to develop research questions and consensus statements. These were presented at the meeting and refined before being approved by all ADQI delegates. RESULTS: Four research questions and fifteen consensus statements were generated. These focused on monitoring the quality of acute RRT along with the Donabedian quality measure domains of structure, process, and outcome. Recommendations for clinical practice and a research agenda for each question were also proposed. CONCLUSION: Currently, there remains few validated QIs for acute RRT. These need further evaluation, need benchmarks established, and ultimately require implementation into clinical practice. Crown
PURPOSE: There is wide variation in the practice of acute renal replacement therapy (RRT). Quality of care is suboptimal, and substantial knowledge-to-care gaps need to be addressed. The quality of care for patients receiving acute RRT has been recognized as a clinical and research priority. Quality indicators (QIs) can be implemented to measure the quality of care received by patients and further be used as targets for continuous quality improvement initiatives focused on the prescription, delivery, and monitoring of acute RRT care. METHODS: The 22nd ADQI meeting was held in San Diego, USA, from October 28th to 30th 2018. Prior to the meeting, a literature review was conducted, and 3 teleconferences were held to develop research questions and consensus statements. These were presented at the meeting and refined before being approved by all ADQI delegates. RESULTS: Four research questions and fifteen consensus statements were generated. These focused on monitoring the quality of acute RRT along with the Donabedian quality measure domains of structure, process, and outcome. Recommendations for clinical practice and a research agenda for each question were also proposed. CONCLUSION: Currently, there remains few validated QIs for acute RRT. These need further evaluation, need benchmarks established, and ultimately require implementation into clinical practice. Crown
Authors: Matthew W Harer; David T Selewski; Kianoush Kashani; Rajit K Basu; Katja M Gist; Jennifer G Jetton; Scott M Sutherland; Michael Zappitelli; Stuart L Goldstein; Theresa Ann Mottes; David J Askenazi Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2020-09-05 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Dawn Opgenorth; Ellen Reil; Vincent Lau; Nancy Fraser; Danny Zuege; Xiaoming Wang; Sean M Bagshaw; Oleksa Rewa Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 2.692