| 1. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.Methods: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.Results. The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N=24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N=7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N=49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N=41, 82%), benchmarking (N=42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N=41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N=48, 98%).Conclusions: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.
|
|
| 2. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in Blood Transfusion and Coagulation Management in Traumatic Brain Injury at the Intensive Care Unit : A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 35:2, s. 323-332
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Our aim was to describe current approaches and to quantify variability between European intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Therefore, we conducted a provider profiling survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The ICU Questionnaire was sent to 68 centers from 20 countries across Europe and Israel. For this study, we used ICU questions focused on 1) hemoglobin target level (Hb-TL), 2) coagulation management, and 3) deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis. Seventy-eight participants, mostly intensivists and neurosurgeons of 66 centers, completed the ICU questionnaire. For ICU-patients, half of the centers (N = 34; 52%) had a defined Hb-TL in their protocol. For patients with TBI, 26 centers (41%) indicated an Hb-TL between 70 and 90 g/L and 38 centers (59%) above 90 g/L. To treat trauma-related hemostatic abnormalities, the use of fresh frozen plasma (N = 48; 73%) or platelets (N = 34; 52%) was most often reported, followed by the supplementation of vitamin K (N = 26; 39%). Most centers reported using DVT prophylaxis with anticoagulants frequently or always (N = 62; 94%). In the absence of hemorrhagic brain lesions, 14 centers (21%) delayed DVT prophylaxis until 72 h after trauma. If hemorrhagic brain lesions were present, the number of centers delaying DVT prophylaxis for 72 h increased to 29 (46%). Overall, a lack of consensus exists between European ICUs on blood transfusion and coagulation management. The results provide a baseline for the CENTER-TBI study, and the large between-center variation indicates multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : Springer. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers.METHODS: We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment.RESULTS: The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36-40 mmHg (4.8-5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30-35 mmHg (4-4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%).CONCLUSIONS: Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring : a CENTER-TBI study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Acta Neurochirurgica. - : Springer. - 0001-6268 .- 0942-0940. ; 164:7, s. 1693-1705
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)-driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)-driven treatment.METHODS: The CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with "center" as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome.RESULTS: A total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36-1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34-2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs.CONCLUSION: We found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor-guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group.
|
|
| 7. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in Guideline Implementation and Adherence Regarding Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment : A CENTER-TBI Survey Study in Europe
- 2019
-
Ingår i: World Neurosurgery. - : Elsevier. - 1878-8750 .- 1878-8769. ; 125, s. e515-e520
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence.METHODS: As part of a prospective, observational, multicenter European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation.RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines, and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were "every patient is unique" and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers.
|
|
