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 (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

Influences of definition ambiguity on hospital performance indicator scores: examples from The Netherlands

Research objective: Reliable and unambiguously defined performance indicators are fundamental to objective and comparable measurements of hospitals' quality of care. In two separate case studies (intensive care and breast cancer care), we investigated if differences in definition interpretation of performance indicators affected the indicator scores. Design: Information about possible definition interpretations was obtained by a short telephone survey and a Web survey. We quantified the interpretation differences using a patient-level dataset from a national clinical registry (Case I) and a hospital's local database (Case II). In Case II, there was additional textual information available about the patients' status, which was reviewed to get more insight into the origin of the differences. Participants: For Case I, we investigated 15 596 admissions of 33 intensive care units in 2009. Case II consisted of 144 admitted patients with a breast tumour surgically treated in one hospital in 2009. Results: In both cases, hospitals reported different interpretations of the indicators, which lead to significant differences in the indicator values. Case II revealed that these differences could be explained by patient-related factors such as severe comorbidity and patients' individual preference in surgery date. Conclusions: With this article, we hope to increase the awareness on pitfalls regarding the indicator definitions and the quality of the underlying data. To enable objective and comparable measurements of hospitals' quality of care, organizations that request performance information should formalize the indicators they use, including standardization of all data elements of which the indicator is composed (procedures, diagnoses)

RELAx - REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Evidence for benefit of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is largely lacking for invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs. We hypothesize that ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP with regard to the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28 in this population. Methods/Design The “REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS” trial (RELAx) is a national, multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with uninjured lungs who are expected not to be extubated within 24 h. RELAx will run in 13 ICUs in the Netherlands to enroll 980 patients under invasive ventilation. In all patients, low tidal volumes are used. Patients assigned to ventilation with low PEEP will receive the lowest possible PEEP between 0 and 5 cm H2O, while patients assigned to ventilation with high PEEP will receive PEEP of 8 cm H2O. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28, a composite endpoint for liberation from the ventilator and mortality until day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of 0.5 days. Secondary endpoints are length of stay (LOS), mortality, and occurrence of pulmonary complications, including severe hypoxemia, major atelectasis, need for rescue therapies, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Hemodynamic support and sedation needs will be collected and compared. Discussion RELAx will be the first sufficiently sized randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs using a clinically relevant and objective endpoint to determine whether invasive, low-tidal-volume ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP.</p