Consensus-based indicators for evaluating and improving the quality of regional collaborative networks of intensive care units: Results of a nationwide Delphi study.

PURPOSE: To select a consensus-based set of relevant and feasible indicators for monitoring and improving the quality of regional ICU network collaboratives. METHODS: A three-round Delphi study was conducted in the Netherlands between April and July 2022. A multidisciplinary expert panel prioritized potentially relevant and feasible indicators in two questionnaire rounds with two consensus meetings between both rounds. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to categorize indicators and synthesize results. A core set of highest ranked indicators with consensus-based levels of relevance and feasibility were finally tested in two ICU networks to assess their measurability. RESULTS: Twenty-four indicators were deemed as relevant and feasible. Seven indicators were selected for the core set measuring the standardized mortality rate in the region (n = 1) and evaluating the presence, content and/or follow-up of a formal plan describing network structures and policy agreements (n = 3), a long-term network vision statement (n = 1), and network meetings to reflect on and learn from outcome data (n = 2). The practice tests led to minor reformulations. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated relevant and feasible indicators for monitoring and improving the quality of ICU network collaboratives based on the collective opinion of various experts. The indicators may help to effectively govern such networks.

Time spent on documenting quality indicator data and associations between the perceived burden of documenting these data and joy in work among professionals in intensive care units in the Netherlands: a multicentre cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The number of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care is debatable and may influence professionals' joy in work. We aimed to assess intensive care unit (ICU) professionals' perceived burden of documenting quality indicator data and its association with joy in work. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: ICUs of eight hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Health professionals (ie, medical specialists, residents and nurses) working in the ICU. MEASUREMENTS: The survey included reported time spent on documenting quality indicator data and validated measures for documentation burden (ie, such documentation being unreasonable and unnecessary) and elements of joy in work (ie, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, autonomy, relatedness and competence). Multivariable regression analysis was performed for each element of joy in work as a separate outcome. RESULTS: In total, 448 ICU professionals responded to the survey (65% response rate). The overall median time spent on documenting quality data per working day is 60 min (IQR 30-90). Nurses spend more time documenting these data than physicians (medians of 60 min vs 35 min, p<0.01). Most professionals (n=259, 66%) often perceive such documentation tasks as unnecessary and a minority (n=71, 18%) perceive them as unreasonable. No associations between documentation burden and measures of joy in work were found, except for the negative association between unnecessary documentations and sense of autonomy (ß=-0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dutch ICU professionals spend substantial time on documenting quality indicator data they often regard as unnecessary. Despite the lacking necessity, documentation burden had limited impact on joy in work. Future research should focus on which aspects of work are affected by documentation burden and whether diminishing the burden improves joy in work.

Healthcare professionals' knowledge of the systematic ABCDE approach: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a universal, priority-based approach for the assessment and treatment of critically ill patients. Although the ABCDE approach is widely recommended, adherence in practice appears to be suboptimal. The cause of this non-compliance is unknown. As knowledge is a prerequisite for adherence, the aim of this study was to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge of the ABCDE approach. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands. A digital multiple-choice assessment tool of the ABCDE approach was developed by an expert panel through a mini-Delphi method and validated by performing test item statistics and an expert-novice comparison. The validated test was sent to healthcare professionals (nurses, residents and medical specialists) of the participating departments: Anaesthesiology, Paediatrics, Emergency Department and the Neonatal, Paediatric and Adult Intensive Care Units. Primary outcome was the test score, reflecting individual level of knowledge. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis and ANOVA were used. RESULTS: Test validation showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.71 and an expert-novice comparison of 91.9% (standard deviation (SD) 9.1) and 72.4% (15.2) respectively (p < 0.001). Of 954 eligible participants, 240 filled out the questionnaire. The mean (SD) test score (% of correct answers) was 80.1% (12.2). Nurses had significantly lower scores (74.9% (10.9)) than residents (92.3% (7.5)) and medical specialists (88.0% (8.6)) (p < 0.001). The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (75.9% (12.6)) and Adult Intensive Care Unit (77.4% (11.2)) had significantly lower scores than Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (85.6% (10.6)), Emergency Department (85.5% (10.4)) and Anaesthesiology (85.3% (10.6)) (p < 0.05). Younger participants scored higher than older participants (-0.30% (-0.46;-0.15) in test score/year increase in age). CONCLUSION: Scores of a validated knowledge test regarding the ABCDE approach vary among healthcare professionals caring for critically ill patients. Type of department, profession category and age had a significant influence on the test score. Further research should relate theoretical knowledge level to clinical practice. Tailored interventions to increase ABCDE-related knowledge are recommended.

Putting measurement on a diet: development of a core set of indicators for quality improvement in the ICU using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: The number and efficacy of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is debatable. This study aimed to select a consensus-based core set of indicators for effective quality improvement in the ICU. METHODS: A Delphi study with a panel of intensivists, ICU nurses, and former ICU patients or relatives (n = 34) from general, teaching, and academic hospitals. Panelists completed a questionnaire in which they scored 69 preselected quality indicators on relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. Indicators were categorized using the rated relevance score into: 'accepted, 'equivocal' and 'excluded'. Questionnaire results were discussed in focus groups to reach consensus on the final set. RESULTS: Response rates for the questionnaire and focus groups were 100 and 68%, respectively. Consensus was reached on a final set of 17 quality indicators including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Other quality indicators relate to the organization and outcome of ICU care, including safety culture, ICU standardized mortality ratio, and the process indicator 'learning from and improving after serious incidents'. CONCLUSIONS: ICU clinicians and former patients and relatives developed a consensus-based core set of ICU quality indicators that is relatively short but comprehensive and particularly tailored to end-users needs.

Perceived Burden Due to Registrations for Quality Monitoring and Improvement in Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are registered to monitor and improve the quality of care. However, the number and effectiveness of quality indicators is under debate, and may influence the joy in work of physicians and nurses. Empirical data on the nature and consequences of the registration burden are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and explore healthcare professionals' perceived burden due to quality registrations in hospitals, and the effect of this burden on their joy in work. METHODS: A mixed methods observational study, including participative observations, a survey and semi-structured interviews in two academic hospitals and one teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Study participants were 371 healthcare professionals from an intensive care unit (ICU), a haematology department and others involved in the care of elderly patients and patients with prostate or gastrointestinal cancer. RESULTS: On average, healthcare professionals spend 52.3 minutes per working day on quality registrations. The average number of quality measures per department is 91, with 1380 underlying variables. Overall, 57% are primarily registered for accountability purposes, 19% for institutional governance and 25% for quality improvement objectives. Only 36% were perceived as useful for improving quality in everyday practice. Eight types of registration burden were identified, such as an excessive number of quality registrations, and the lack of usefulness for improving quality and inefficiencies in the registration process. The time healthcare professionals spent on quality registrations was not correlated with any measure of joy in work. Perceived unreasonable registrations were negatively associated with healthcare professionals' joy in work (intrinsic motivation and autonomy). Healthcare professionals experienced quality registrations as diverting time from patient care and from actually improving quality. CONCLUSION: Registering fewer quality indicators, but more of what really matters to healthcare professionals, is key to increasing the effectiveness of registrations for quality improvement and governance. Also the efficiency of quality registrations should be increased through staffing and information and communications technology solutions to reduce the registration burden experienced by nurses and physicians.

Development and daily use of a numeric rating score to assess sleep quality in ICU patients.

PURPOSE: Insufficient sleep burdens critically ill patients, optimizing sleep may enhance patient's outcomes. Current assessment methods may unnecessary burden patients. Therefore, a single numeric rating score was validated for sleep assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, two cross-sectional measurements on two separate days, from cooperative patients from 19 centers assessed their sleep sufficiency, the numeric rating score (NRS) and the Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Assessments were compared using a Bland Altman plot. A NRS cut-off was determined using regression analysis. Second, daily sleep assessment was implemented and monitored single center for a year. RESULTS: Multicenter, 194 patients assessed sleep quality, of which 53% was rated as sufficient. Mean (±SD) difference between RCSQ and NRS-Sleep using Bland-Altman analysis was 0.25 (±1.21, 95% limits of agreement -2.12 to 2.62). The optimal cut-off was >5. Single center, 1603 patients ranked 4532 ICU nights of sleep, of which 71% was sufficient; median NRS was 6 [IQR 5-7]. CONCLUSIONS: A single numeric rating score for sleep is interchangeable for the RCSQ score for assessment of sleep quality. Optimal cut-off is >5. Use of a numeric rating score for sleep is a practical way to evaluate and monitor sleep as perceived by patients in daily ICU practice.