ArticleIntensive care medicine2015
Feasibility and utility of the use of real time random safety audits in adult ICU patients: a multicentre study.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of random safety analyses on structure, process and outcome indicators: multicentre study.Annals of intensive care · 2017Article
- From weaning theory to practice: implementation of a quality improvement program in ICU.Intensive care medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe two aims of this study were first to analyse the feasibility and utility (to improve the care process) of implementing a new real time random safety tool and second to explore the efficacy of this tool in core hospitals (those participating in tool design) versus non-core hospitals.
methodsThis was a prospective study conducted over a period of 4 months in six adult intensive care units (two of which were core hospitals). Safety audits were conducted 3 days per week during the entire study period to determine the efficacy of the 37 safety measures (grouped into ten blocks). In each audit, 50% of patients and 50% of measures were randomized. Feasibility was calculated as the proportion of audits completed over those scheduled and time spent, and utility was defined as the changes in the care process resulting from tool application.
resultsA total of 1323 patient-days were analysed. In terms of feasibility, 87.6% of the scheduled audits were completed. The average time spent per audit was 34.5 ± 29 min. Globally, changes in the care process occurred in 5.4% of the measures analysed. In core hospitals, utility was significantly higher in 16 of the 37 measures, all of which were included in good clinical practice guidelines. Most of the clinical changes brought about by the tool occurred in the mechanical ventilation and haemodynamics blocks. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that changes in the care process in each block were associated with the core hospital variable, staffing ratios and severity of patient disease.
conclusionsReal time safety audits improved the care process and adherence to the clinical practice guidelines and proved to be most useful in situations of high care load and in patients with more severe disease. The effect was greater in core hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25869404What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.