Best Practices in Telecritical Care: Expert Consensus Recommendations From the Telecritical Care Collaborative Network.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006418
Benjamin K Scott, Jaspal Singh, Marilyn Hravnak, Sonia S Everhart, Donna Lee Armaignac, Theresa M Davis, Matthew R Goede, Sai Praveen Haranath, Christina M Kordik, Krzysztof Laudanski, Peter A Pappas, Subhash Patel, Teresa A Rincon, Elizabeth A Scruth, Sanjay Subramanian, Israel Villanueva, Lisa-Mae Williams, Rodney Wilson, Jeremy C Pamplin
{"title":"Best Practices in Telecritical Care: Expert Consensus Recommendations From the Telecritical Care Collaborative Network.","authors":"Benjamin K Scott, Jaspal Singh, Marilyn Hravnak, Sonia S Everhart, Donna Lee Armaignac, Theresa M Davis, Matthew R Goede, Sai Praveen Haranath, Christina M Kordik, Krzysztof Laudanski, Peter A Pappas, Subhash Patel, Teresa A Rincon, Elizabeth A Scruth, Sanjay Subramanian, Israel Villanueva, Lisa-Mae Williams, Rodney Wilson, Jeremy C Pamplin","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Telecritical care (TCC) refers to the delivery of critical care using telehealth technologies. Despite increasing utilization, significant practice variation exists and literature regarding efficacy remains sparse. The Telecritical Care Collaborative Network sought to provide expert, consensus-based best practice recommendations for the design and delivery of TCC.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We used a modified Delphi methodology. Following literature review, an oversight panel identified core domains and developed declarative statements for review by an expert voting panel. During three voting rounds, voters agreed or disagreed with statements and provided open-ended feedback, which the oversight panel used to revise statements. Statements met criteria for consensus when accepted by greater than or equal to 85% of voters.</p><p><strong>Setting/subjects: </strong>The oversight panel included 18 multidisciplinary members of the TCC Collaborative Network, and the voting panel included 32 invited experts in TCC, emphasizing diversity of discipline, care delivery models, and geography.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We identified ten core domains: definitions/terminology; care delivery models; staffing and coverage models; technological considerations; ergonomics and workplace safety; licensing, credentialing, and certification; trust and relationship building; quality, safety, and efficiency, research agenda; and advocacy, leading to 79 practice statements. Of 79 original statements, 67 were accepted in round 1. After revision, nine were accepted in round 2 and two in round 3 (two statements were merged). In total, 78 practice statements achieved expert consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These expert consensus recommendations cover a broad range of topics relevant to delivery of TCC. Experts agreed that TCC is most effective when delivered by care teams with specific expertise and by programs with explicit protocols focusing on effective communication, technical reliability, and real-time availability. Interventions should be tailored to local conditions. Although further research is needed to guide future best practice statements, these results provide valuable and actionable recommendations for the delivery of high-quality TCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":"52 11","pages":"1750-1767"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006418","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Telecritical care (TCC) refers to the delivery of critical care using telehealth technologies. Despite increasing utilization, significant practice variation exists and literature regarding efficacy remains sparse. The Telecritical Care Collaborative Network sought to provide expert, consensus-based best practice recommendations for the design and delivery of TCC.

Design: We used a modified Delphi methodology. Following literature review, an oversight panel identified core domains and developed declarative statements for review by an expert voting panel. During three voting rounds, voters agreed or disagreed with statements and provided open-ended feedback, which the oversight panel used to revise statements. Statements met criteria for consensus when accepted by greater than or equal to 85% of voters.

Setting/subjects: The oversight panel included 18 multidisciplinary members of the TCC Collaborative Network, and the voting panel included 32 invited experts in TCC, emphasizing diversity of discipline, care delivery models, and geography.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: We identified ten core domains: definitions/terminology; care delivery models; staffing and coverage models; technological considerations; ergonomics and workplace safety; licensing, credentialing, and certification; trust and relationship building; quality, safety, and efficiency, research agenda; and advocacy, leading to 79 practice statements. Of 79 original statements, 67 were accepted in round 1. After revision, nine were accepted in round 2 and two in round 3 (two statements were merged). In total, 78 practice statements achieved expert consensus.

Conclusions: These expert consensus recommendations cover a broad range of topics relevant to delivery of TCC. Experts agreed that TCC is most effective when delivered by care teams with specific expertise and by programs with explicit protocols focusing on effective communication, technical reliability, and real-time availability. Interventions should be tailored to local conditions. Although further research is needed to guide future best practice statements, these results provide valuable and actionable recommendations for the delivery of high-quality TCC.

远程重症监护的最佳实践:远程重症监护协作网络的专家共识建议。
目的:远程重症监护(TCC)是指利用远程医疗技术提供重症监护服务。尽管使用率在不断提高,但实践中仍存在很大差异,有关疗效的文献仍然很少。远程重症监护协作网络试图为远程重症监护的设计和实施提供基于专家共识的最佳实践建议:设计:我们采用了改良的德尔菲方法。在对文献进行审查后,监督小组确定了核心领域,并制定了声明陈述供专家投票小组审查。在三轮投票中,投票人同意或不同意声明,并提供开放式反馈,监督小组利用这些反馈修改声明。当超过或等于 85% 的投票者接受声明时,声明即符合达成共识的标准:监督小组包括 18 名 TCC 协作网络的多学科成员,投票小组包括 32 名受邀的 TCC 专家,强调学科、医疗服务模式和地域的多样性:干预措施:无:我们确定了十个核心领域:定义/术语;护理提供模式;人员配备和覆盖模式;技术考虑因素;人体工程学和工作场所安全;许可、资质和认证;信任和关系建设;质量、安全和效率、研究议程;以及宣传,最终形成了 79 项实践声明。在 79 份原始声明中,67 份在第一轮中被采纳,经过修订,9 份在第二轮中被采纳,2 份在第三轮中被采纳(2 份声明被合并)。共有 78 份实践声明达成了专家共识:这些专家共识建议涵盖了与提供 TCC 相关的广泛主题。专家们一致认为,由具有特定专业知识的护理团队和具有明确协议的项目提供的 TCC 最为有效,协议的重点是有效沟通、技术可靠性和实时可用性。干预措施应符合当地条件。虽然还需要进一步的研究来指导未来的最佳实践声明,但这些研究结果为提供高质量的 TCC 提供了宝贵且可行的建议。
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
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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