Quality indicators in intensive care medicine for Germany - third edition 2017.

Quality improvement in medicine is depending on measurement of relevant quality indicators. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2013 underwent a scheduled evaluation after three years. There were major changes in several indicators but also some indicators were changed only minimally. The focus on treatment processes like ward rounds, management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, as well as the number of 10 indicators were not changed. Most topics remained except for early mobilization which was introduced instead of hypothermia following resuscitation. Infection prevention was added as an outcome indicator. These quality indicators are used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. A validity period of three years is planned for the quality indicators.

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit--a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports. METHODS: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs - representing over 300 patient beds - had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. RESULTS: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

The German quality indicators in intensive care medicine 2013--second edition.

Quality indicators are key elements of quality management. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2010 were recently evaluated when their validity time expired after two years. Overall one indicator was replaced and further three were in part changed. The former indicator I "elevation of head of bed" was replaced by the indicator "Daily multi-professional ward rounds with the documentation of daily therapy goals" and added to the indicator IV "Weaning and other measures to prevent ventilator associated pneumonias (short: Weaning/VAP Bundle)" (VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia) which aims at the reduction of VAP incidence. The indicator VIII "Documentation of structured relative-/next-of-kin communication" was refined. The indicator X "Direction of the ICU by a specially trained certified intensivist with no other clinical duties in a department" was also updated according to recent study results. These updated quality indicators are part of the Peer Review in intensive care medicine. The next update of the quality indicators is due in 2016.

[Peer review in ICU]. / Peer Reviews in der Intensivmedizin.

Peer reviewing in intensive care medicine is an evaluation process that promotes a professional understanding of quality and the exchange of experience in intensive care. It will help integrate evidence-based knowledge into the treatment process at an earlier stage and thus improve the quality of intensive care and intensive nursing care. The process is a learning experience for all involved and is highly satisfying to the participants. The exchange of experience is an essential part of quality control.

Quality indicators in intensive care medicine: why? Use or burden for the intensivist.

In order to improve quality (of therapy), one has to know, evaluate and make transparent, one's own daily processes. This process of reflection can be supported by the presentation of key data or indicators, in which the real as-is state can be represented. Quality indicators are required in order to depict the as-is state.Quality indicators reflect adherence to specific quality measures. Continuing registration of an indicator is useless once it becomes irrelevant or adherence is 100%. In the field of intensive care medicine, studies of quality indicators have been performed in some countries. Quality indicators relevant for medical quality and outcome in critically ill patients have been identified by following standardized approaches.Different German societies of intensive care medicine have finally agreed on 10 core quality indicators that will be valid for two years and are currently recommended in German intensive care units (ICUs).

Peer reviewing critical care: a pragmatic approach to quality management.

Critical care medicine frequently involves decisions and measures that may result in significant consequences for patients. In particular, mistakes may directly or indirectly derive from daily routine processes. In addition, consequences may result from the broader pharmaceutical and technological treatment options, which frequently involve multidimensional aspects. The increasing complexity of pharmaceutical and technological properties must be monitored and taken into account. Besides the presence of various disciplines involved, the provision of 24-hour care requires multiple handovers of significant information each day. Immediate expert action that is well coordinated is just as important as a professional handling of medicine's limitations.Intensivists are increasingly facing professional quality management within the ICU (Intensive Care Unit). This article depicts a practical and effective approach to this complex topic and describes external evaluation of critical care according to peer reviewing processes, which have been successfully implemented in Germany and are likely to gain in significance.

[Evidence-based anti-infective program "ABx" - Online-program for anti-infective therapy broadens functions for local adaptations]. / Evidenzbasiertes Antiinfektiva-Programm "ABx" - Neue Möglichkeiten durch lokale Anpassung.

National and international evidence based recommendations for anti-infective therapies in the intensive care unit are difficult to implement into daily clinical work. However, adequate and early applications of anti-infective therapies are important outcome factors for the clinical course of severe infections. With support of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Association of German Anaesthesiologists (DGAI/BDA) a web based anti-infective program was developed to address these issues. The program includes interdisciplinary consented evidence based algorithms to help with immediate diagnostics and initial anti-infective therapies. Currently, with the title "ABx local" a subproject is launched to broaden program functions. It unifies current evidence based recommendations and local internal standards or comments on one platform to achieve priority of therapy options e.g. based on resistance patterns.