Search

The measurement of quality indicators supports quality improvement initiatives. The German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) has published quality indicators for intensive care medicine for the fourth time now. After a scheduled evaluation after three years, changes in several indicators were made. Other indicators were not changed or only minimally. The focus remained strongly on relevant treatment processes like management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, and infections in the ICU. Another focus was communication inside the ICU. The number of 1ndicators remained the same. The development method was more structured and transparency was increased by adding new features like evidence levels or author contribution and potential conflicts of interest. These quality indicators should be used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. Other forms of measurement and evaluation are also reasonable, for example in quality management. This fourth edition of the quality indicators will be updated in the future to reflect the recently published recommendations on the structure of intensive care units by the DIVI.

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 , , and , as well as the number of 10 indicators were not changed. Most topics remained except for which was introduced instead of . 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.

[english] 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 interestingConclusion: 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.

[english] 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 indic “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 indic 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.[german] Qualitätsindikatoren sind elementare Bestandteile des Qualitätsmanagements. Die Qualitätsindikatoren für die Intensivmedizin der Deutschen Interndisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensivmedizin (DIVI) aus dem Jahre 2010 sind nun im Rahmen der geplanten Geltungsdauer überarbeitet und angepasst worden. Insgesamt wurde ein Indikator ersetzt und drei weitere zum Teil wesentlich überarbeitet. Der alte Indikator I „Oberkörperhochlagerung“ wurde durch den Indikator „Tägliche multiprofessionelle, klinische Visite mit Dokumentation von Tageszielen“ ersetzt und in den neu geschaffenen Indikator IV „Weaning und Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung von ventilatorassoziierten Pneumonien (kurz: Weaning/VAP Bundle)“ (VAP = ventilator-assoziierte Pneumonie) integriert, der auf ein Verringerung der VAP-Inzidenz abzielt. Der Indikator VIII „Dokumentation von strukturierten Angehörigengesprächen“ wurde weiter präzisiert. Der Indikator X „Leitung der Intensivstation durch einen Facharzt mit Zusatzbezeichnung Intensivmedizin, der keine anderen klinischen Aufgaben hat“ anhand der aktuellen Studienlage ebenfalls präzisiert. Die aktualisierten Qualitätsindikatoren sind Bestandteil der intensivmedizinischen Peer Reviews. Ihre nächste Aktualisierung ist für das Jahr 2016 geplant.

Author(s): Maria Brauchle [sup.1], Teresa Deffner [sup.2], Peter Nydahl [sup.3], Alexander Brinkmann, Svenja Dehner, Rolf Dubb, Simon Finkeldei, Birga Gatzweiler, Carsten Hermes, Christian Heyd, Magdalena Hoffmann, Marie-Madlen Jeitziner, Arnold Kaltwasser, [...]

Author(s): Maria Brauchle [sup.1], Teresa Deffner [sup.2], Peter Nydahl [sup.3], Alexander Brinkmann, Svenja Dehner, Rolf Dubb, Simon Finkeldei, Birga Gatzweiler, Carsten Hermes, Christian Heyd, Magdalena Hoffmann, Marie-Madlen Jeitziner, Arnold Kaltwasser, [...]

Background: Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios. Methods: Ten fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses. Results: In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the "S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders" correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively). Conclusion: Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Heilberufe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)