Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25587245›Full record

ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2014

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit--a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units.

Oliver Kumpf, Frank Bloos, Hanswerner Bause, Alexander Brinkmann, Maria Deja, Gernot Marx, Arnold Kaltwasser, Rolf Dubb, Elke Muhl, Clemens-A Greim and 13 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. [Development of clinical risk management in German hospitals].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. [Quality assurance concepts in intensive care medicine].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.

Oliver KumpfDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank BloosDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Hanswerner BauseQuality Committee of the State Chamber of Physicians, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexander BrinkmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Heidenheim, Heidenheim, Germany.
Maria DejaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Gernot MarxDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Universitätsklinikum RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Arnold KaltwasserKreiskliniken Reutlingen GmbH, Reutlingen, Germany.
Rolf DubbKreiskliniken Reutlingen GmbH, Reutlingen, Germany.
Elke MuhlDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Clemens-A GreimDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Fulda, Fulda, Germany.
Norbert WeilerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Ines ChopGerman Medical Association, Berlin, Germany.
Günther JonitzGerman Medical Association, Berlin, Germany ; State Chamber of Physicians Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Henning SchaeferState Chamber of Physicians Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias FelsensteinState Chamber of Physicians Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany.
Ursula LiebeskindState Chamber of Physicians Thüringen, Jena, Germany.
Carsten LeffmannState Chamber of Physicians Schleswig-Holstein, Bad Segeberg, Germany.
Annemarie JungbluthState Chamber of Physicians Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Christian WaydhasTrauma Surgery Department, University Hospital Essen, Germany.
Peter PronovostThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Departments of Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine and Surgery, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jan-Peter BraunDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Helios Klinikum Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany.
NeQuI-Group (Netzwerk Qualität in der Intensivmedizin)
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEChamber of Deputies · ITChamber of Labour · ATGerman Medical Association · DEKreiskliniken Reutlingen · DEFriedrich Schiller University Jena · DEKiel University · DEKlinikum Fulda · DERWTH Aachen University · DESiloah St. Trudpert Klinikum · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionQuality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports.

methodsRetrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs - representing over 300 patient beds - had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented.

resultsExternal assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

Indexed as

GermanyHumansIntensive Care UnitsPeer ReviewQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareRetrospective StudiesVoluntary Programscritical carepatient safetypeer reviewquality improvementquality management

Identifiers

PMID25587245
PMCPMC4270273
OpenAlexW1612347359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.