Search

It is becoming increasingly common for government bodies, healthcare providers, funders and consumers to seek measures of the quality of critical care. It is important to ensure the quality of intensive care unit (ICU) data is high so these stakeholders can confidently use quality of care measures in decision-making. This paper aims to evaluate the quality of data collected for and submitted to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database, and to investigate the perceptions of NSW ICU directors in relation to ICU data quality, reporting and usage. A survey tool was developed based on an existing framework that consisted of procedures for assessing data quality in medical registries. The survey was distributed to the directors of all NSW ICUs that submitted data in the 2007/2008 financial year. Overall, completeness of the data and its quality was perceived to be good. Participants were less likely to engage in activities involving the detection and correction of data errors, feedback of data or use of data for local purposes. A number of barriers and enablers to good quality ICU data as well as strategies to improve data quality were identified. Inadequate staff, training and resources for data collection were widespread concerns. NSW ICU directors believe more work is required to achieve high quality data and appropriate use of the data collected. Strategies targeting increased resources including updated technology and improved staffing and training, as well as low-cost solutions such as audit, feedback and clinician engagement, have been highlighted.

This pilot study aimed to test the use of a checklist as a method of ensuring that certain processes of care are performed routinely and systematically in a tertiary intensive care unit. The pilot involved the development of a process indicator checklist, its implementation and review. The checklist contained 16 items sourced from the literature or deemed important by local clinicians. Checklists were completed on the morning round for all adult patients admitted to the unit for approximately one month. Baseline and evaluation surveys were conducted with medical staff to assess both the benefits and shortcomings of using the checklist. Results demonstrated good compliance in completing the checklist (81%) and that when checked, certain aspects of care were not always delivered when appropriate. At the conclusion of the study the majority of medical staff believed that care in the intensive care unit actually improved with the use of the checklist, and all thought that it assisted in ensuring that good quality care was delivered. The checklist is a useful tool that can be readily applied to facilitate best practice and quality in everyday clinical care, ultimately leading to better health outcomes for patients.

The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) has reluctantly concluded that it would not be appropriate to sponsor the entire package of the 'Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.' Some components do not reflect current practice in Australia and New Zealand and some have not been proven to be superior to current practice binationally.

There are indications that compliance with routine clinical practices in intensive care units (ICU) varies widely internationally, but it is currently unknown whether this is the case throughout Australia and New Zealand. A one-day point prevalence study measured the prevalence of routine care processes being delivered in Australian and New Zealand ICUs including the assessment and/or management of: nutrition, pain, sedation, weaning from mechanical ventilation, head of bed elevation, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, blood glucose, pressure areas and bowel action. Using a sample of 50 adult ICUs, prevalence data were collected for 662 patients with a median age of 65 years and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18. Wide variations in compliance were evident in several care components including: assessment of nutritional goals (74%, interquartile range [IQR] 51 to 89%), pain score (35%, IQR 17 to 62%), sedation score (89%, IQR 50 to 100%); care of ventilated patients e.g. head of bed elevation >30 degrees (33%, IQR 7 to 62%) and setting weaning plans (50%, IQR 28 to 78%); pressure area risk assessment (78%, IQR 18 to 100%) and constipation management plan (43%, IQR 6 to 87%). Care components that were delivered more consistently included nutrition delivery (100%, IQR 100 to 100%), deep venous thrombosis (96%, IQR 89 to 100%) and stress ulcer (90%, IQR 78 to 100%) prophylaxis, and checking blood sugar levels (93%, IQR 88 to 100%). This point prevalence study demonstrated variability in the delivery of ‘routine’ cares in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. This may be driven in part by lack of consensus on what is best practice in intensive care units, prompting the need for further research in this area.