一套标准化的指标来评估加拿大麻醉质量、围手术期护理和急性疼痛管理:一项多学科修正德尔菲研究。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Janny X C Ke, Mindy A Smith, Kathryn Sparrow, Nicholas West, May-Sann Yee, Kang Mu Yoo, Louise Y Sun, W Scott Beattie, Matthias Görges
{"title":"一套标准化的指标来评估加拿大麻醉质量、围手术期护理和急性疼痛管理:一项多学科修正德尔菲研究。","authors":"Janny X C Ke, Mindy A Smith, Kathryn Sparrow, Nicholas West, May-Sann Yee, Kang Mu Yoo, Louise Y Sun, W Scott Beattie, Matthias Görges","doi":"10.1007/s12630-025-02951-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of metrics to measure the quality of care in anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We sought to conduct a modified Delphi study involving a multidisciplinary panel of perioperative health care professionals (anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses, internal medicine and family medicine physicians, and hospital administrators), patients, and caregivers. Participants reviewed a candidate list of metrics synthesized from a previous scoping review and performed three rounds of independent iterative scoring and feedback to achieve consensus. In round 3, we asked participants to identify priority metrics to include in a list of core metrics, and we also asked health care professionals to assess the feasibility of implementing each metric.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 80 participants (49 health care professionals, 22 patients, and 9 caregivers) who completed at least one round of voting, with 56 completing all three rounds. The panel achieved consensus on 87 metrics, of which they deemed 33 to be priority core metrics. The health care professional and patient/caregiver subgroups differed in prioritizing core metrics. Most participants voted airway complications, no residual neuromuscular blockade, difficult airway documentation, complication or critical incident reporting, and complications from pain management the highest priority metrics. Most health care professional participants considered the core metrics to be already measured, currently feasible, or likely feasible by 2025.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A multidisciplinary panel developed a list of metrics for measuring the quality of anesthesiology care in Canada. Many metrics require further refinement and validation, and future research is required to guide the measurement techniques and implementation approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":"698-720"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A standardized set of metrics to assess the quality of anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Janny X C Ke, Mindy A Smith, Kathryn Sparrow, Nicholas West, May-Sann Yee, Kang Mu Yoo, Louise Y Sun, W Scott Beattie, Matthias Görges\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12630-025-02951-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of metrics to measure the quality of care in anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We sought to conduct a modified Delphi study involving a multidisciplinary panel of perioperative health care professionals (anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses, internal medicine and family medicine physicians, and hospital administrators), patients, and caregivers. Participants reviewed a candidate list of metrics synthesized from a previous scoping review and performed three rounds of independent iterative scoring and feedback to achieve consensus. In round 3, we asked participants to identify priority metrics to include in a list of core metrics, and we also asked health care professionals to assess the feasibility of implementing each metric.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 80 participants (49 health care professionals, 22 patients, and 9 caregivers) who completed at least one round of voting, with 56 completing all three rounds. The panel achieved consensus on 87 metrics, of which they deemed 33 to be priority core metrics. The health care professional and patient/caregiver subgroups differed in prioritizing core metrics. Most participants voted airway complications, no residual neuromuscular blockade, difficult airway documentation, complication or critical incident reporting, and complications from pain management the highest priority metrics. Most health care professional participants considered the core metrics to be already measured, currently feasible, or likely feasible by 2025.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A multidisciplinary panel developed a list of metrics for measuring the quality of anesthesiology care in Canada. Many metrics require further refinement and validation, and future research is required to guide the measurement techniques and implementation approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"698-720\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-025-02951-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-025-02951-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是制定一份衡量加拿大麻醉、围手术期护理和急性疼痛管理质量的共识指标清单。方法:我们试图进行一项修正的德尔菲研究,涉及围手术期卫生保健专业人员(麻醉师、外科医生、护士、内科和家庭医学医生以及医院管理人员)、患者和护理人员的多学科小组。参与者回顾了从之前的范围评审中合成的候选指标列表,并执行了三轮独立的迭代评分和反馈,以达成共识。在第3轮中,我们要求参与者确定要包括在核心指标列表中的优先指标,我们还要求卫生保健专业人员评估实施每个指标的可行性。结果:有80名参与者(49名卫生保健专业人员,22名患者和9名护理人员)至少完成了一轮投票,其中56人完成了全部三轮投票。专家组就87项指标达成共识,其中33项被认为是优先核心指标。医疗保健专业人员和患者/护理人员亚组在优先考虑核心指标方面存在差异。大多数参与者认为气道并发症、无残留神经肌肉阻滞、气道记录困难、并发症或严重事件报告以及疼痛管理并发症是最优先的指标。大多数医疗保健专业参与者认为,核心指标已经得到衡量,目前可行,或到2025年可能可行。结论:一个多学科小组制定了一系列衡量加拿大麻醉学护理质量的指标。许多度量需要进一步的细化和验证,并且需要未来的研究来指导度量技术和实现方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A standardized set of metrics to assess the quality of anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of metrics to measure the quality of care in anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada.

Methods: We sought to conduct a modified Delphi study involving a multidisciplinary panel of perioperative health care professionals (anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses, internal medicine and family medicine physicians, and hospital administrators), patients, and caregivers. Participants reviewed a candidate list of metrics synthesized from a previous scoping review and performed three rounds of independent iterative scoring and feedback to achieve consensus. In round 3, we asked participants to identify priority metrics to include in a list of core metrics, and we also asked health care professionals to assess the feasibility of implementing each metric.

Results: There were 80 participants (49 health care professionals, 22 patients, and 9 caregivers) who completed at least one round of voting, with 56 completing all three rounds. The panel achieved consensus on 87 metrics, of which they deemed 33 to be priority core metrics. The health care professional and patient/caregiver subgroups differed in prioritizing core metrics. Most participants voted airway complications, no residual neuromuscular blockade, difficult airway documentation, complication or critical incident reporting, and complications from pain management the highest priority metrics. Most health care professional participants considered the core metrics to be already measured, currently feasible, or likely feasible by 2025.

Conclusions: A multidisciplinary panel developed a list of metrics for measuring the quality of anesthesiology care in Canada. Many metrics require further refinement and validation, and future research is required to guide the measurement techniques and implementation approaches.

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
8.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content, according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain, perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French, according to the language of submission.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信