Johannes Wacker,Guy Haller,Jan F A Hendrickx,Martin Ponschab
{"title":"欧洲各国麻醉医师协会推广的围手术期质量指标调查与分析:EQUIP 项目。","authors":"Johannes Wacker,Guy Haller,Jan F A Hendrickx,Martin Ponschab","doi":"10.1097/eja.0000000000002054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nTo capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologist Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVES\r\nThe aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.\r\n\r\nDESIGN\r\nA cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.\r\n\r\nSETTING\r\nThe 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.\r\n\r\nPARTICIPANTS\r\nRepresentatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\r\nQIs reported by NAS.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOnly 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nFew NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.\r\n\r\nTRIAL REGISTRATION\r\nNo registration.","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A survey and analysis of peri-operative quality indicators promoted by National Societies of Anaesthesiologists in Europe: The EQUIP project.\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Wacker,Guy Haller,Jan F A Hendrickx,Martin Ponschab\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/eja.0000000000002054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nTo capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologist Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.\\r\\n\\r\\nOBJECTIVES\\r\\nThe aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.\\r\\n\\r\\nDESIGN\\r\\nA cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.\\r\\n\\r\\nSETTING\\r\\nThe 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.\\r\\n\\r\\nPARTICIPANTS\\r\\nRepresentatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.\\r\\n\\r\\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\\r\\nQIs reported by NAS.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nOnly 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nFew NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.\\r\\n\\r\\nTRIAL REGISTRATION\\r\\nNo registration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0000000000002054\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0000000000002054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A survey and analysis of peri-operative quality indicators promoted by National Societies of Anaesthesiologists in Europe: The EQUIP project.
BACKGROUND
To capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologist Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.
DESIGN
A cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.
SETTING
The 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.
PARTICIPANTS
Representatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
QIs reported by NAS.
RESULTS
Only 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.
CONCLUSIONS
Few NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
No registration.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).