Proposed Quality Metrics for Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia: A Scoping Review.

Morgan L Brown,Anna Dorste,Phillip S Adams,Lisa A Caplan,Stephen J Gleich,Jennifer L Hernandez,Lori Q Riegger,
{"title":"Proposed Quality Metrics for Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Morgan L Brown,Anna Dorste,Phillip S Adams,Lisa A Caplan,Stephen J Gleich,Jennifer L Hernandez,Lori Q Riegger,","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Congenital cardiac anesthesiologists practice in a unique environment with high risk for morbidity and mortality. Quality metrics can be used to focus clinical initiatives on evidence-based care and provide a target for local quality improvement measures. However, there has been no comprehensive review on appropriate quality metrics for congenital cardiac anesthesia to date. Members of the Quality and Safety Committee for the Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society proposed 31 possible candidate topics for metrics. Using a scoping review strategy, 3649 abstracts were reviewed with 30 articles meeting final criteria. Of these, 5 candidate metrics were unanimously proposed for local collection and national benchmarking efforts: use of a structured handover in the intensive care unit, use of an infection prevention bundle, use of blood conservation strategies, early extubation of cardiopulmonary bypass cases, and cardiac arrest under the care of a cardiac anesthesiologist. Many metrics were excluded due to a lack of primary data and perceived complexity beyond the scope of cardiac anesthesia practice. There is a need to develop more primary data including linking process measures with outcomes, developing risk-stratification for our patients, and collecting national data for benchmarking purposes.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"193 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Congenital cardiac anesthesiologists practice in a unique environment with high risk for morbidity and mortality. Quality metrics can be used to focus clinical initiatives on evidence-based care and provide a target for local quality improvement measures. However, there has been no comprehensive review on appropriate quality metrics for congenital cardiac anesthesia to date. Members of the Quality and Safety Committee for the Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society proposed 31 possible candidate topics for metrics. Using a scoping review strategy, 3649 abstracts were reviewed with 30 articles meeting final criteria. Of these, 5 candidate metrics were unanimously proposed for local collection and national benchmarking efforts: use of a structured handover in the intensive care unit, use of an infection prevention bundle, use of blood conservation strategies, early extubation of cardiopulmonary bypass cases, and cardiac arrest under the care of a cardiac anesthesiologist. Many metrics were excluded due to a lack of primary data and perceived complexity beyond the scope of cardiac anesthesia practice. There is a need to develop more primary data including linking process measures with outcomes, developing risk-stratification for our patients, and collecting national data for benchmarking purposes.
先天性心脏病麻醉的拟议质量指标:范围审查。
先天性心脏麻醉医生的工作环境特殊,发病率和死亡率风险较高。质量指标可用于将临床工作重点放在循证护理上,并为当地的质量改进措施提供目标。然而,迄今为止尚未对先天性心脏麻醉的适当质量指标进行全面审查。先天性心脏麻醉协会质量与安全委员会的成员提出了 31 个可能的指标候选主题。采用范围审查策略,对 3649 篇摘要进行了审查,有 30 篇文章符合最终标准。其中,5 项候选指标被一致建议用于本地收集和国家基准制定工作:在重症监护病房使用结构化交接、使用感染预防捆绑包、使用血液保存策略、心肺旁路病例的早期拔管以及在心脏麻醉师护理下的心脏骤停。由于缺乏原始数据以及认为其复杂性超出了心脏麻醉实践的范围,许多指标被排除在外。有必要开发更多的原始数据,包括将流程措施与结果联系起来,为我们的患者制定风险分级,以及收集全国数据作为基准。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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