| 1. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(author)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
In: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Oddo, Mauro, et al.
(author)
-
Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients : an international prospective multicenter double-blinded study
- 2018
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 44:12, s. 2102-2111
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To assess the ability of quantitative pupillometry [using the Neurological Pupil index (NPi)] to predict an unfavorable neurological outcome after cardiac arrest (CA). Methods: We performed a prospective international multicenter study (10 centers) in adult comatose CA patients. Quantitative NPi and standard manual pupillary light reflex (sPLR)—blinded to clinicians and outcome assessors—were recorded in parallel from day 1 to 3 after CA. Primary study endpoint was to compare the value of NPi versus sPLR to predict 3-month Cerebral Performance Category (CPC), dichotomized as favorable (CPC 1–2: full recovery or moderate disability) versus unfavorable outcome (CPC 3–5: severe disability, vegetative state, or death). Results: At any time between day 1 and 3, an NPi ≤ 2 (n = 456 patients) had a 51% (95% CI 49–53) negative predictive value and a 100% positive predictive value [PPV; 0% (0–2) false-positive rate], with a 100% (98–100) specificity and 32% (27–38) sensitivity for the prediction of unfavorable outcome. Compared with NPi, sPLR had significantly lower PPV and significantly lower specificity (p < 0.001 at day 1 and 2; p = 0.06 at day 3). The combination of NPi ≤ 2 with bilaterally absent somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP; n = 188 patients) provided higher sensitivity [58% (49–67) vs. 48% (39–57) for SSEP alone], with comparable specificity [100% (94–100)]. Conclusions: Quantitative NPi had excellent ability to predict an unfavorable outcome from day 1 after CA, with no false positives, and significantly higher specificity than standard manual pupillary examination. The addition of NPi to SSEP increased sensitivity of outcome prediction, while maintaining 100% specificity.
|
|
