Codesign of a Quality Improvement Tool for Adults With Prolonged Critical Illness: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

Q4 Medicine
Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2024-09-12 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001146
Laura Allum, Natalie Pattison, Bronwen Connolly, Chloe Apps, Katherine Cowan, Emily Flowers, Nicholas Hart, Louise Rose
{"title":"Codesign of a Quality Improvement Tool for Adults With Prolonged Critical Illness: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.","authors":"Laura Allum, Natalie Pattison, Bronwen Connolly, Chloe Apps, Katherine Cowan, Emily Flowers, Nicholas Hart, Louise Rose","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Increasing numbers of patients experience a prolonged stay in intensive care. Yet existing quality improvement (QI) tools used to improve safety and standardize care are not designed for their specific needs. This may result in missed opportunities for care and contribute to worse outcomes. Following an experience-based codesign process, our objective was to build consensus on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Items were identified from a previous systematic review and interviews with former patients, their care partners, and clinicians. Two rounds of an online modified Delphi survey were undertaken, and participants were asked to rate each item from 1 to 9 in terms of importance for effective care; where 1-3 was not important, 4-6 was important but not critical, and 7-9 was critically important for inclusion in the QI tool. A final consensus meeting was then moderated by an independent facilitator to further discuss and prioritize items.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Carried out in the United Kingdom.</p><p><strong>Patients/subjects: </strong>Former patients who experienced a stay of over 7 days in intensive care, their family members and ICU staff.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We recruited 116 participants: 63 healthcare professionals (54%), 45 patients (39%), and eight relatives (7%), to Delphi round 1, and retained 91 (78%) in round 2. Of the 39 items initially identified, 32 were voted \"critically important\" for inclusion in the QI tool by more than 70% of Delphi participants. These were prioritized further in a consensus meeting with 15 ICU clinicians, four former patients and one family member, and the final QI tool contains 25 items, including promoting patient and family involvement in decisions, providing continuity of care, and structured ventilator weaning and rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using experience-based codesign and rigorous consensus-building methods we identified important content for a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness. Work is underway to understand tool acceptability and optimum implementation strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Increasing numbers of patients experience a prolonged stay in intensive care. Yet existing quality improvement (QI) tools used to improve safety and standardize care are not designed for their specific needs. This may result in missed opportunities for care and contribute to worse outcomes. Following an experience-based codesign process, our objective was to build consensus on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness.

Design: Items were identified from a previous systematic review and interviews with former patients, their care partners, and clinicians. Two rounds of an online modified Delphi survey were undertaken, and participants were asked to rate each item from 1 to 9 in terms of importance for effective care; where 1-3 was not important, 4-6 was important but not critical, and 7-9 was critically important for inclusion in the QI tool. A final consensus meeting was then moderated by an independent facilitator to further discuss and prioritize items.

Setting: Carried out in the United Kingdom.

Patients/subjects: Former patients who experienced a stay of over 7 days in intensive care, their family members and ICU staff.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: We recruited 116 participants: 63 healthcare professionals (54%), 45 patients (39%), and eight relatives (7%), to Delphi round 1, and retained 91 (78%) in round 2. Of the 39 items initially identified, 32 were voted "critically important" for inclusion in the QI tool by more than 70% of Delphi participants. These were prioritized further in a consensus meeting with 15 ICU clinicians, four former patients and one family member, and the final QI tool contains 25 items, including promoting patient and family involvement in decisions, providing continuity of care, and structured ventilator weaning and rehabilitation.

Conclusions: Using experience-based codesign and rigorous consensus-building methods we identified important content for a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness. Work is underway to understand tool acceptability and optimum implementation strategies.

成人长期重症患者质量改进工具的代码设计:改良德尔菲共识研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信