Vrindha Pari1. 1. Chennai Critical Care Consultants, Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India. vrindha.pari@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1-5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff well-being, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: This consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs.
PURPOSE: To develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1-5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff well-being, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: This consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs.
Authors: A Rhodes; R P Moreno; E Azoulay; M Capuzzo; J D Chiche; J Eddleston; R Endacott; P Ferdinande; H Flaatten; B Guidet; R Kuhlen; C León-Gil; M C Martin Delgado; P G Metnitz; M Soares; C L Sprung; J F Timsit; A Valentin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Margaret E Kruk; Anna D Gage; Catherine Arsenault; Keely Jordan; Hannah H Leslie; Sanam Roder-DeWan; Olusoji Adeyi; Pierre Barker; Bernadette Daelmans; Svetlana V Doubova; Mike English; Ezequiel García-Elorrio; Frederico Guanais; Oye Gureje; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Lixin Jiang; Edward Kelley; Ephrem Tekle Lemango; Jerker Liljestrand; Address Malata; Tanya Marchant; Malebona Precious Matsoso; John G Meara; Manoj Mohanan; Youssoupha Ndiaye; Ole F Norheim; K Srinath Reddy; Alexander K Rowe; Joshua A Salomon; Gagan Thapa; Nana A Y Twum-Danso; Muhammad Pate Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Maria L Odland; Dmitri Nepogodiev; Dion Morton; Janet Martin; Abebe Bekele; Dhruva Ghosh; Adesoji O Ademuyiwa; Justine I Davies; Thomas G Weiser Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Claudia Fischer; Hester F Lingsma; Helen A Anema; Job Kievit; Ewout W Steyerberg; Niek Klazinga Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marlot C Kallen; Marie-Jose Roos-Blom; Dave A Dongelmans; Jeroen A Schouten; Wouter T Gude; Evert de Jonge; Jan M Prins; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Margaret E Kruk; Anna D Gage; Naima T Joseph; Goodarz Danaei; Sebastián García-Saisó; Joshua A Salomon Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jilske A Huijben; Eveline J A Wiegers; Nicolette F de Keizer; Andrew I R Maas; David Menon; Ari Ercole; Giuseppe Citerio; Fiona Lecky; Lindsay Wilson; Maryse C Cnossen; Suzanne Polinder; Ewout W Steyerberg; Mathieu van der Jagt; Hester F Lingsma Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Helen A Anema; Job Kievit; Claudia Fischer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Niek S Klazinga Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 2.655