Cultura de segurança em unidades de terapia intensiva na perspectiva da equipe multiprofissional: Estudo multicêntrico / Cultura de seguridad en unidades de terapia intensiva en la perspectiva del equipo multiprofesional: Estudio multicéntrico / Safety Culture in intensive care units from multiprofessional team perspective: A multicenter study

Resumo Introdução: A Cultura de Segurança do Paciente é considerada um importante componente estrutural dos serviços, que favorece a implantação de práticas seguras e a diminuição da ocorrência de eventos adversos. Objetivo: Identificar os fatores associados à cultura de segurança do paciente nas unidades de terapia intensiva adulto em hospitais de grande porte da região Sudeste do Brasil. Método: Estudo transversal do tipo survey e multicêntrico. Participaram 168 profissionais de saúde de quatro unidades (A, B, C e D) de terapia intensiva adulto. Foi utilizado o questionário "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture". Considerou-se como variável dependente o nível de cultura de segurança do paciente e variáveis independentes aspectos sociodemográficos e laborais. Foram usadas estatísticas descritivas e para a análise dos fatores associados foi elaborado um modelo de regressão logística múltipla. Resultados: Identificou-se associação entre tipo de hospital com onze dimensões da cultura de segurança, quanto à função a categoria profissional médico, técnico de enfermagem e enfermeiro foram relacionadas com três dimensões; o gênero com duas dimensões e tempo de atuação no setor com uma dimensão. Conclusão: Evidenciou-se que o tipo de hospital, categoria profissional, tempo de atuação no setor e gênero foram associados às dimensões de cultura de segurança do paciente.

Resumen Introducción: La cultura de seguridad del paciente se considera un componente estructural importante de los servicios, que favorece la aplicación de prácticas seguras y la reducción de la aparición de acontecimientos adversos. Objetivo: Identificar los factores asociados a la cultura de seguridad del paciente en unidades de terapia intensiva adulto en hospitales de la región Sudeste del Brasil. Metodología: Estudio transversal de tipo encuesta y multicéntrico. Participaron 168 profesionales de salud de cuatro unidades (A, B, C y D) de terapia intensiva adulto. Se utilizó el cuestionario "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture". Se consideró como variable dependiente el nivel de cultura de seguridad del paciente y variables independientes los aspectos sociodemográficos y laborales. Fueron usadas estadísticas descriptivas y, para analizar los factores asociados, fue elaborado un modelo de regresión logística múltiple. Resultados: Se identificó asociación entre tipo de hospital con once dimensiones de cultura de seguridad del paciente. En relación a la función, personal médico, técnicos de enfermería y personal de enfermería fueron asociados con tres dimensiones, el género con dos dimensiones y tiempo de actuación con una dimensión en el modelo de regresión. Conclusión: Se evidenció que el tipo de hospital, función, tiempo de actuación en el sector y género fueron asociados a las dimensiones de la cultura de seguridad del paciente.

Abstract Introduction: Patient safety culture is considered an important structural component of the services, which promotes the implementation of safe practices and the reduction of adverse events. Objective: To identify the factors associated with patient safety culture in adult intensive care units in large hospitals in Belo Horizonte. Method: Cross-sectional survey and multicenter study. A total of 168 health professionals from four units (A, B, C and D) of adult intensive care participated. The questionnaire "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture" was used. The patient's level of safety culture was considered as a dependent variable, and sociodemographic and labor aspects were the independent variables. Descriptive statistics were used and a multiple logistic regression model was developed to analyze the associated factors. Results: An association was identified between the type of hospital and eleven dimensions of the safety culture. In terms of function, the doctors, nursing technicians, and nurse were related to three dimensions; gender with two dimensions, and time working in the sector with one dimension. Conclusion: It was evidenced that the type of hospital, function, time working in the sector, and gender were associated with the dimensions of patient safety culture.

Implementation of quality indicators for vulvar cancer in gynaecological cancer centres certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG).

PURPOSE: In 2018, the first guideline-based quality indicators (QI) for vulvar cancer were implemented in the data-sheets of certified gynaecological cancer centres. The certification process includes guideline-based QIs as a fundamental component. These indicators are specifically designed to evaluate the level of care provided within the centres. This article aims to give an overview of the developing process of guideline based-QIs for women with vulvar cancer and presents the QIs results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres. METHODS: The QIs were derived in a standardized multiple step process during the update of the 2015 S2k guideline "Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors" (registry-number: no. 015/059) and are based on strong recommendations. RESULTS: In total, there are eight guideline-based QIs for vulvar cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2021, 2.466 cases of vulvar cancer were treated in 177 centres. The target values in the centres for pathology reports on tumour resection and lymphadenectomy as well as sentinel lymph nodes have increased since the beginning of the certification process and have been above 90% over the past three treatment years (2019-2021). DISCUSSION: QIs based on strong guideline recommendations, play a crucial role in measuring and allowing to quantify essential aspects of patient care. By utilizing QIs, centres are able to identify areas for process optimization and draw informed conclusions. Over the years the quality of treatment of vulvar cancer patients measured by the QIs was improved. The certification system is continuously reviewed to enhance patient care even further by using the outcomes from QIs revaluation.

Is the QCI framework suited for monitoring outcomes and costs in a teaching hospital using value-based healthcare principles? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective is to develop a pragmatic framework, based on value-based healthcare principles, to monitor health outcomes per unit costs on an institutional level. Subsequently, we investigated the association between health outcomes and healthcare utilisation costs. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A teaching hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The study was performed in two use cases. The bariatric population contained 856 patients of which 639 were diagnosed with morbid obesity body mass index (BMI) <45 and 217 were diagnosed with morbid obesity BMI ≥45. The breast cancer population contained 663 patients of which 455 received a lumpectomy and 208 a mastectomy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined asQCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros)where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path. RESULTS: The breast cancer and bariatric population had the highest resulting outcome values in 2020 Q4, 0.93 and 0.73, respectively. The average total costs of the bariatric population remained stable (avg, €8833.55, min €8494.32, max €9164.26). The breast cancer population showed higher variance in costs (avg, €12 735.31 min €12 188.83, max €13 695.58). QCI values of both populations showed similar variance (0.3 and 0.8). Failing health outcome indicators was significantly related to higher hospital-based costs of care in both populations (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The QCI framework is effective for monitoring changes in average total costs and relevant health outcomes on an institutional level. Health outcomes are associated with hospital-based costs of care.

The first decade of the Danish Palliative Care Database: improvements and ongoing challenges in the quality and use of specialised palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Danish Palliative Care Database comprises five quality indicators: (1) Contact with specialised palliative care (SPC) among referred patients, (2) Waiting time of less than 10 days, (3) Proportion of patients who died from (A) cancer or (B) non-cancer diseases, and had contact with SPC, (4) Proportion of patients completing the patient-reported outcome measure at baseline (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), and (5) Proportion of patients discussed at a multidisciplinary conference. PURPOSE: To investigate changes in the quality indicators from 2010 until 2020 in cancer and non-cancer patients. Patients/material: Patients aged 18+ years who died from 2010 until 2020. METHOD: Register-based study with the Danish Palliative Care Database as the main data source. Indicator changes were reported as percentage fulfilment. RESULTS: From 2010 until 2020, the proportion of patients with non-cancer diseases in SPC increased slightly (2.5-7.2%). In 2019, fulfilment of the five indicators for cancer and non-cancer were: (1) 81% vs. 73%; (2) 73% vs. 68%; (3A) 50%; (3B) 2%; (4) 73% vs. 66%; (5) 73% vs. 65%. Whereas all other indicators improved, the proportion of patients waiting less than 10 days from referral to contact decreased. Differences between type of unit were found, mainly lower for hospice. INTERPRETATION: Most patients in SPC had cancer. All indicators except waiting time improved during the 10-year period. The establishment of the Danish Palliative Care Database may have contributed to the positive development; however, SPC in Denmark needs to be improved, especially regarding a reduction in waiting time and enhanced contact for non-cancer patients.

Adherence to diabetes quality indicators in primary care and all-cause mortality: A nationwide population-based historical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the last three decades, much effort has been invested in measuring and improving the quality of diabetes care. We assessed the association between adherence to diabetes quality indicators and all-cause mortality in the primary care setting. METHODS: A nationwide, population-based, historical cohort study of all people aged 45-80 with pharmacologically-treated diabetes in 2005 (n = 222,235). Data on annual performance of quality indicators (including indicators for metabolic risk factor management and glycemic control) and vital status were retrieved from electronic medical records of the four Israeli health maintenance organizations. Cox proportional hazards and time-dependent models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality by degree of adherence to quality indicators. RESULTS: During 2,000,052 person-years of follow-up, 35.8% of participants died. An inverse dose-response association between the degree of adherence and mortality was shown for most of the quality indicators. Participants who were not tested for proteinuria or did not visit an ophthalmologist during the first-5-years of follow-up had HRs of 2.60 (95%CI:2.49-2.69) and 2.09 (95%CI:2.01-2.16), respectively, compared with those who were fully adherent. In time-dependent analyses, not measuring LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, HbA1c, or HbA1c>9% were similarly associated with mortality (HRs ≈1.5). The association of uncontrolled blood pressure with mortality was modified by age, with increased mortality shown for those with controlled blood pressure at older ages (≥65 years). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal adherence to diabetes quality indicators is associated with reduced all-cause mortality. Primary care professionals need to be supported by health care systems to perform quality indicators.

Colorectal cancer health and care quality indicators in a federated setting using the Personal Health Train.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals and healthcare providers should assess and compare the quality of care given to patients and based on this improve the care. In the Netherlands, hospitals provide data to national quality registries, which in return provide annual quality indicators. However, this process is time-consuming, resource intensive and risks patient privacy and confidentiality. In this paper, we presented a multicentric 'Proof of Principle' study for federated calculation of quality indicators in patients with colorectal cancer. The findings suggest that the proposed approach is highly time-efficient and consume significantly lesser resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two quality indicators are calculated in an efficient and privacy presevering federated manner, by i) applying the Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles and ii) using the Personal Health Train (PHT) infrastructure. Instead of sharing data to a centralized registry, PHT enables analysis by sending algorithms and sharing only insights from the data. RESULTS: ETL process extracted data from the Electronic Health Record systems of the hospitals, converted them to FAIR data and hosted in RDF endpoints within each hospital. Finally, quality indicators from each center are calculated using PHT and the mean result along with the individual results plotted. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: PHT and FAIR data principles can efficiently calculate quality indicators in a privacy-preserving federated approach and the work can be scaled up both nationally and internationally. Despite this, application of the methodology was largely hampered by ELSI issues. However, the lessons learned from this study can provide other hospitals and researchers to adapt to the process easily and take effective measures in building quality of care infrastructures.

Calculation of Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings With and Without Inclusion of the Peer Grouping Step.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods. Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023. Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics. Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.

Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

The Ability of Primary Care Practices to Measure and Report on Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: Creating useful clinical quality measure (CQM) reports in a busy primary care practice is known to depend on the capability of the electronic health record (EHR). Two other domains may also contribute: supportive leadership to prioritize the work and commit the necessary resources, and individuals with the necessary health information technology (IT) skills to do so. Here we describe the results of an assessment of the above 3 domains and their associations with successful CQM reporting during an initiative to improve smaller primary care practices' cardiovascular disease CQMs. METHODS: The study took place within an AHRQ EvidenceNOW initiative of external support for smaller practices across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Practice facilitators who provided this support completed an assessment of the 3 domains previously described for each of their assigned practices. Practices submitted 3 CQMs to the study team: appropriate aspirin prescribing, use of statins when indicated, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. RESULTS: Practices with advanced EHR reporting capability were more likely to report 2 or more CQMs. Only one-third of practices were "advanced" in this domain, and this domain had the highest proportion of practices (39.1%) assessed as "basic." The presence of advanced leadership or advanced skills did not appreciably increase the proportion of practices that reported 2 or more CQMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support previous reports of limited EHR reporting capabilities within smaller practices but extend these findings by demonstrating that practices with advanced capabilities in this domain are more likely to produce CQM reports.

Hospital performance evaluation indicators: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are the biggest consumers of health system budgets and hence measuring hospital performance by quantitative or qualitative accessible and reliable indicators is crucial. This review aimed to categorize and present a set of indicators for evaluating overall hospital performance. METHODS: We conducted a literature search across three databases, i.e., PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using possible keyword combinations. We included studies that explored hospital performance evaluation indicators from different dimensions. RESULTS: We included 91 English language studies published in the past 10 years. In total, 1161 indicators were extracted from the included studies. We classified the extracted indicators into 3 categories, 14 subcategories, 21 performance dimensions, and 110 main indicators. Finally, we presented a comprehensive set of indicators with regard to different performance dimensions and classified them based on what they indicate in the production process, i.e., input, process, output, outcome and impact. CONCLUSION: The findings provide a comprehensive set of indicators at different levels that can be used for hospital performance evaluation. Future studies can be conducted to validate and apply these indicators in different contexts. It seems that, depending on the specific conditions of each country, an appropriate set of indicators can be selected from this comprehensive list of indicators for use in the performance evaluation of hospitals in different settings.

Medication adherence star ratings measures, health care resource utilization, and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between missed CMS Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence over 3 years for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications (9 measures) and health care utilization and relative costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study examined eligible patients who qualified for the diabetes, statin, and renin-angiotensin system antagonist medication adherence measures in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and were continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan from 2017 through 2021. A total of 103,900 patients were divided into 4 groups based on the number of adherence measures missed (3 medication classes over 3 years): (1) missed 0 measures, (2) missed 1 measure, (3) missed 2 or 3 measures, and (4) missed 4 or more measures. To achieve a quality measure, patients had to meet the Pharmacy Quality Alliance 80% threshold of proportion of days covered during the calendar year. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 71.1 years, and 49.9% were female. Compared with patients who missed 0 of 9 adherence measures, those who missed 1 measure, 2 or 3 measures, and 4 or more measures experienced 12% to 26%, 22% to 42%, and 24% to 50% increased risks, respectively, of all-cause and diabetes-related inpatient stays and all-cause and diabetes-related emergency department visits (all  P  values < .01). Additionally, patients who missed 1, 2 or 3, and 4 or more adherence measures experienced 14%, 19%, and 20% higher monthly medical costs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Missing Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence was associated with an increased likelihood of health care resource utilization and increased costs for patients taking medications to treat diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Diseño de un panel de indicadores para programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los Servicios de Urgencias / Design of a panel of indicators for antibiotic stewardship programs in the Emergency Department

Objetivo: desarrollar un panel de indicadores para monitorizar la actividad de los programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias. Métodos: un grupo multidisciplinar formado por expertos en el manejo de la infección en urgencias y en la implantación de programas de optimización de uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) evaluó una propuesta de indicadores utilizando una metodología Delphi modificada. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos clasificó la relevancia de cada indicador propuesto en 2 dimensiones (repercusión asistencial y facilidad de implantación) y 2 atributos (nivel de priorización y periodicidad de medida). La segunda ronda se realizó a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas y nuevos indicadores sugeridos por los participantes. Los expertos efectuaron modificaciones en el orden de priorización y calificaron los nuevos indicadores propuestos de la misma manera que en la primera ronda. Resultados: se propusieron un total de 61 potenciales indicadores divididos en 4 grupos: indicadores de consumo, microbiológicos, de proceso y de resultado. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, 31 indicadores fueron clasificados como de alta prioridad, 25 de prioridad intermedia y 5 de baja prioridad. Además se generaron 19 nuevos indicadores. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron los 61 indicadores inicialmente propuestos y adicionalmente se incorporaron 18 nuevos: 11 como de alta prioridad, 3 como de intermedia y 4 como de baja prioridad. Conclusiones: los expertos consensuaron un panel de indicadores PROA adaptado a los servicios de urgencias priorizados por nivel de relevancia como un elemento de ayuda para el desarrollo de estos programas, que contribuirá a monitorizar la adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades.(AU)

Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.(AU)

Design of a panel of indicators for antibiotic stewardship programs in the Emergency Department / Diseño de un panel de indicadores para programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los Servicios de Urgencias

Objetivo: desarrollar un panel de indicadores para monitorizar la actividad de los programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias. Métodos: un grupo multidisciplinar formado por expertos en el manejo de la infección en urgencias y en la implantación de programas de optimización de uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) evaluó una propuesta de indicadores utilizando una metodología Delphi modificada. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos clasificó la relevancia de cada indicador propuesto en 2 dimensiones (repercusión asistencial y facilidad de implantación) y 2 atributos (nivel de priorización y periodicidad de medida). La segunda ronda se realizó a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas y nuevos indicadores sugeridos por los participantes. Los expertos efectuaron modificaciones en el orden de priorización y calificaron los nuevos indicadores propuestos de la misma manera que en la primera ronda. Resultados: se propusieron un total de 61 potenciales indicadores divididos en 4 grupos: indicadores de consumo, microbiológicos, de proceso y de resultado. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, 31 indicadores fueron clasificados como de alta prioridad, 25 de prioridad intermedia y 5 de baja prioridad. Además se generaron 19 nuevos indicadores. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron los 61 indicadores inicialmente propuestos y adicionalmente se incorporaron 18 nuevos: 11 como de alta prioridad, 3 como de intermedia y 4 como de baja prioridad. Conclusiones: los expertos consensuaron un panel de indicadores PROA adaptado a los servicios de urgencias priorizados por nivel de relevancia como un elemento de ayuda para el desarrollo de estos programas, que contribuirá a monitorizar la adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades.(AU)

Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.(AU)

El registro continuado de los efectos adversos mejora los resultados quirúrgicos / Continuous monitoring of adverse effects improves surgical outcomes

Antecedentes: Se ha debatido mucho sobre las ventajas e inconvenientes del uso de bases administrativas o de registros clínicos en los programas de mejora de la atención médica. El objetivo de este estudio ha sido revisar la implementación y los resultados de una política de evaluación continua, mediante un registro mantenido por profesionales de un Servicio de Cirugía. Material y métodos: Se incluyeron, de forma prospectiva, todos los pacientes ingresados en el servicio entre los años 2003 y 2022. Se anotaron todos los efectos adversos (EA) acaecidos durante el ingreso, la estancia en centros de convalecencia o en su domicilio durante un periodo mínimo de 30 días tras el alta. Resultados: De 60.125 registros, en 16.802 (27,9%) se registraron 24.846 EA. Hubo un aumento progresivo del número de EA registrados por ingreso (1,17 en 2003 vs. 1,93 en 2022) con una disminución de 26% de los registros con EA (35% en 2003 hasta 25,8% en 2022), de 57,5% en las reoperaciones (de 8 a 3,4%, respectivamente), y de 80% en la mortalidad (de 1,8 a 1%, respectivamente). Es de remarcar la reducción significativa de los EA graves, observada entre los años 2011 y el 2022 (56 vs. 15,6%). Conclusión: Un registro prospectivo de EA creado y mantenido por profesionales del servicio, junto con la presentación y discusión abierta y trasparente de los resultados, produce una mejora sostenida de los resultados en un servicio quirúrgico de un hospital universitario.(AU)

Background: There has been significant debate about the advantages and disadvantages of using administrative databases or clinical registries in healthcare improvement programs. The aim of this study was to review the implementation and outcomes of an accountability policy through a registry maintained by professionals of the surgical department.Materials and methods: All patients admitted to the department between 2003 and 2022 were prospectively included. All adverse events (AEs) occurring during the admission, convalescent care in facilities, or at home for a minimum period of 30 days after discharge were recorded. Results: Out of 60,125 records, 24,846 AEs were documented in 16,802 cases (27.9%). There was a progressive increase in the number of AEs recorded per admission (1.17 in 2003 vs. 1.93 in 2022) with a 26% decrease in entries with AEs (from 35% in 2003 to 25.8% in 2022), a 57.5% decrease in reoperations (from 8.0% to 3.4%, respectively), and an 80% decrease in mortality (from 1.8% to 1%, respectively). It is noteworthy that a significant reduction in severe AEs was observed between 2011 and 2022 (56% vs. 15.6%). Conclusion: A prospective registry of AEs created and maintained by health professionals, along with transparent presentation and discussion of the results, leads to sustained improvement in outcomes in a surgical department of a university hospital.(AU)

Evaluación del manejo y seguimiento de los pacientes diabéticos en la prevención de la retinopatía diabética / Evaluation of the management and follow-up of diabetic patients in the prevention of diabetic retinopathy

Fundamentos: La diabetes mellitus es una enfermedad crónica con alta morbimortalidad que afecta a 537 millones de adultos en el mundo. España es el segundo país europeo en prevalencia, con un 14,8% en población de veinte-setenta y nueve años, con 11,6 casos por cada 1.000 personas/año. La retinopatía diabética (RD) es la quinta causa de pérdida de visión a nivel mundial y la séptima causa de ceguera/discapacidad visual entre afiliados a la Organización Nacional de Ciegos de España (ONCE). La detección precoz de RD previene la ceguera en diabéticos y está condicionada por la hemoglobina glicosilada. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar el manejo de los pacientes diabéticos en la comarca del Aljarafe (Sevilla) e identificar oportunidades de mejora en la coordinación de su seguimiento entre el médico de Atención Primaria y el médico oftalmólogo. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo (2016-2019) con los pacientes registrados en el censo de diabéticos de los veintiocho municipios del Aljarafe. Se consultó la historia de salud de Atención Primaria y Hospital, así como el programa de Telemedicina. En cuanto al análisis estadístico, para variables cualitativas se calcularon totales y porcentajes; para variables cuantitativas, media y distribución estándar (si distribución normal), y la mediana y cuartiles (distribución no normal). Resultados: Se registraron 17.175 diabéticos en el Aljarafe (5,7% de población); 14.440 pacientes (84,1%) tenían alguna determinación de hemoglobina durante el periodo, 9.228 (63,9%) las tenían todas en rango adecuado. Tenían control fundoscópico 12.040 diabéticos (70,1%), y de los que no, 346 (10,6%) tenían todas fuera de rango. Hubo 1.878 (10,9%) pacientes sin control fundoscópico ni metabólico, 1.019 (54,3%) eran mujeres, 1.219 (64,9%) menores de sesenta y cinco años, 1.019 (54,3%) con comorbilidad grave...(AU)

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease with high morbidity and mortality, affecting 537 million adults worldwide. Spain is the second European country in prevalence, with 14.8% in the population aged twenty/seventy-nine years; with 11.6 cases per 1,000 people/year. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the fifth cause of vision loss worldwide and the seventh cause of blindness/visual impairment among members of the National Organization of the Blind in Spain (ONCE). Early detection of DR prevents blindness in diabetics and is conditioned by glycosylated hemoglobin. The aim of this paper was to analyze the management of diabetic patients in Aljarafe region (Seville) and identify opportunities for improvement in the coordination of their follow-up between the Primary Care physician and the ophthalmologist. Methods: A retrospective observational study (2016-2019) was carried out, with patients registered in the diabetic census of the twenty-eight municipalities of Aljarafe. The primary care and hospital health history, and telemedicine program were consulted. About statistical analysis, for qualitative variables, totals and percentages were calculated; for quantitative variables, mean and standard devia-tion (if normally distributed) and median and quartiles (if non-normally distributed). RESULTS // There were 17,175 diabetics registered in Aljarafe (5.7% of the population); 14,440 patients (84.1%) had some determi-nation of hemoglobin during the period, 9,228 (63.9%) had all of them in the appropriate range. Fundoscopic control was performed on 12,040 diabetics (70.1%), and of those who did not, 346 (10.6%) had all of them out of range. There were 1,878 (10.9%) patients without fundoscopic or metabolic control, 1,019 (54.3%) were women, 1,219 (64.9%) were under sixty-five years of age, 1,019 (54.3%) had severe comorbidity...(AU)

Trauma Registry: Trauma Quality indicators analysis in hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: to consolidate a Trauma Register (TR) trough REDCap data acquisition platform and to validate, in this context, local Quality Indicators (QI) as improvement opportunities in trauma management. METHODS: continuous data acquisition of all patients admitted in Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo adult Trauma bay and it's validation in REDCap platform; 6 months retrospective cohort of QI impact in length of hospitalar stay, complications and mortality. Fisher, Chi-squared, Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to correlate QIs fails with the endpoints, considering p<0.05 and CI <95% as statically significant. RESULTS: 465 were admitted in Trauma bay, with 137 patients hospitalized (29.5%); the number of QIs compromised were related with more complications (p=0.075) and increased length of stay (p=0.028), especially the delay in open fracture's surgical management, which increased the severe complications' incidence (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: the REDCap data acquisition platform is useful as a tool for multi center TR implementation, from ethical and logistical point of view; nevertheless, the proposed QIs are validated as attention points in trauma management, allowing improvements in traumatized patients treatment.

Adherence to quality indicators for emergency department treatment of acute poisoning according to patient sex. / Grado de cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad según el sexo del paciente en las intoxicaciones agudas en urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: To study differences in the emergency department treatment of acute poisoning according to biological sex of patients and to assess adherence to care quality indicators. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study including all cases of acute poisoning diagnosed in patients over the age of 14 years treated in a tertiary care hospital emergency department over a period of 4 years. We analyzed demographic variables, substance type and reason for acute poisoning, degree of adherence to quality indicators, and discharge destination. RESULTS: A total of 1144 cases were included; 710 patients (62.1%) were female and 434 (37.9%) were male. The proportion of deliberate self-poisoning was higher in females (52.3% vs 41.4% in males; P .001); unintentional poisoning was less frequent in females (in 24.9% vs in 30.3% of males; P = .047). Benzodiazepine poisoning was more frequent in females (in 49.6% vs 41.2%; P = .007). Street drug and alcohol poisoning was less common in females. Adherence to quality indicators was high (> 85%) for both sexes. CONCLUSION: The epidemiologic profile of poisoning is different in females and males. General emergency department adherence to quality indicators can be considered optimal. We detected no qualitative sex-related differences in the care of patients with acute poisoning.

OBJETIVO: Estudiar las diferencias dependiendo del sexo en la atención de pacientes con intoxicaciones agudas en urgencias y en el grado de cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad (IC). METODO: Estudio observacional y retrospectivo, que incluyó todos los casos de intoxicación aguda de pacientes mayores de 14 años atendidos en el servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario durante 4 años. Se analizaron variables demográficas, tipo de tóxicos y causa de la intoxicación, el grado de cumplimiento de los IC y destino al alta. RESULTADOS: Se registraron 1.144 casos, un 62,1% (n = 710) eran mujeres. Las mujeres tuvieron mayor número de intoxicaciones voluntarias (52,3% vs 41,4%; p 0,001) y menos de manera accidental (24,9% vs 30,3%; p = 0,047). Los fármacos más frecuentes en mujeres fueron las benzodiacepinas (49,6% vs 41,2%; p = 0,007), y las intoxicaciones por drogas de abuso y alcohol fueron menores que en hombres. Hubo un alto grado de cumplimiento en la mayoría de los IC (> 85%) en ambos sexos. CONCLUSIONES: El perfil epidemiológico de la intoxicación aguda en mujeres es diferente al de los hombres. En general se puede considerar como óptimo el cumplimiento de los IC en urgencias. No existen diferencias cualitativas en la asistencia del paciente intoxicado con respecto a su sexo.

Quality measures of virtual care in ambulatory healthcare environments: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Delivery of virtual care increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and persisted after physical distancing measures ended. However, little is known about how to measure the quality of virtual care, as current measures focus on in-person care and may not apply to a virtual context. This scoping review aims to understand the connections between virtual care modalities used with ambulatory patient populations and quality measures across the Quintuple Aim (provider experience, patient experience, per capita cost, population health and health equity). DESIGN: Virtual care was considered any interaction between patients and/or their circle of care occurring remotely using any form of information technology. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, JBI) and grey literature sources (11 websites, 3 search engines) were searched from 2015 to June 2021 and again in August 2022 for publications that analysed virtual care in ambulatory settings. Indicators were extracted, double-coded into the Quintuple Aim framework; patient and provider experience indicators were further categorised based on the National Academy of Medicine quality framework (safety, effectiveness, patient-centredness, timeliness, efficiency and equity). Sustainability was added to capture the potential for continued use of virtual care. RESULTS: 13 504 citations were double-screened resulting in 631 full-text articles, 66 of which were included. Common modalities included video or audio visits (n=43), remote monitoring (n=11) and mobile applications (n=11). The most common quality indicators were related to patient experience (n=58 articles), followed by provider experience (n=25 articles), population health outcomes (n=23 articles) and health system costs (n=19 articles). CONCLUSIONS: The connections between virtual care modalities and quality domains identified here can inform clinicians, administrators and other decision-makers how to monitor the quality of virtual care and provide insights into gaps in current quality measures. The next steps include the development of a balanced scorecard of virtual care quality indicators for ambulatory settings to inform quality improvement.