Cargando…

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries

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 (foundat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Pari, Vrindha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9592651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36112158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06818-7
_version_ 1784814977843986432
author Pari, Vrindha
author_facet Pari, Vrindha
author_sort Pari, Vrindha
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06818-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9592651
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95926512022-10-26 Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries Pari, Vrindha Intensive Care Med Original 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06818-7. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-09-16 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9592651/ /pubmed/36112158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06818-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original
Pari, Vrindha
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries
title Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries
title_full Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries
title_fullStr Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries
title_full_unstemmed Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries
title_short Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries
title_sort development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of icu care in low- and middle-income countries
topic Original
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9592651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36112158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06818-7
work_keys_str_mv AT parivrindha developmentofaqualityindicatorsettomeasureandimprovequalityoficucareinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT developmentofaqualityindicatorsettomeasureandimprovequalityoficucareinlowandmiddleincomecountries