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。

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":"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。","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":"6 9","pages":"e1146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"6 9\",\"pages\":\"e1146\"},\"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}","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

摘要

目的:越来越多的患者需要长期接受重症监护。然而,用于提高安全性和规范护理的现有质量改进(QI)工具并不是针对他们的特殊需求而设计的。这可能会导致错失护理机会,并造成更坏的结果。根据基于经验的编码设计流程,我们的目标是就最重要的可操作护理流程达成共识,以便将其纳入针对长期重症成人患者的 QI 工具:设计:从之前的系统性回顾以及对既往患者、其护理伙伴和临床医生的访谈中确定项目。进行了两轮在线改良德尔菲调查,要求参与者对每个项目进行评分,根据其对有效护理的重要性从 1 到 9 分进行评分;其中 1-3 分不重要,4-6 分重要但不关键,7-9 分非常重要,可纳入 QI 工具。然后由一名独立主持人主持召开最后的共识会议,进一步讨论并确定项目的优先次序:患者/研究对象:在英国进行:干预措施:无:测量和主要结果我们招募了 116 名参与者:在德尔菲第一轮中,我们招募了 63 名医护人员(54%)、45 名患者(39%)和 8 名亲属(7%),并在第二轮中保留了 91 人(78%)。在最初确定的 39 个项目中,有 32 个项目被超过 70% 的德尔菲参与者评为 "极其重要",可纳入 QI 工具。在与 15 名重症监护室临床医生、4 名既往患者和 1 名家属举行的共识会议上,这些项目被进一步排序,最终的 QI 工具包含 25 个项目,其中包括促进患者和家属参与决策、提供连续性护理以及结构化呼吸机断奶和康复:通过基于经验的编码设计和严格的建立共识方法,我们确定了针对长期危重症成人患者的 QI 工具的重要内容。了解工具的可接受性和最佳实施策略的工作正在进行中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Codesign of a Quality Improvement Tool for Adults With Prolonged Critical Illness: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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