Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26497132›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2015

[Quality assurance concepts in intensive care medicine].

A Brinkmann, J P Braun, R Riessen, R Dubb, A Kaltwasser, T M Bingold

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. [Telemedicine in the ICU - the possibilities and limitations of an innovation].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Quality assurance and quality management in intensive care].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2015
    Article
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

6 authors.

A BrinkmannKlinik für Anästhesiologie, operative Intensivmedizin und spezielle Schmerztherapie, Klinikum Heidenheim, gGmbH, Schlosshaustraße 100, 89522, Heidenheim, Deutschland. alexander.brinkmann@kliniken-heidenheim.de.
J P BraunKlinik für Anästhesie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Helios Klinikum Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Deutschland.
R RiessenInternistische Intensivstation, Department für Innere Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
R DubbAkademie der Kreiskliniken Reutlingen, Kreiskliniken Reutlingen GmbH, Reutlingen, Deutschland.
A KaltwasserAkademie der Kreiskliniken Reutlingen, Kreiskliniken Reutlingen GmbH, Reutlingen, Deutschland.
T M BingoldKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intensive care medicine (ICM) is characterized by a high degree of complexity and requires intense communication and collaboration on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional levels. In order to achieve good quality of care in this environment and to prevent errors, a proactive quality and error management as well as a structured quality assurance system are essential. Since the early 1990s, German intensive care societies have developed concepts for quality management and assurance in ICM. In 2006, intensive care networks were founded in different states to support the implementation of evidence-based knowledge into clinical routine and to improve medical outcome, efficacy, and efficiency in ICM. Current instruments and concepts of quality assurance in German ICM include core intensive care data from the data registry DIVI REVERSI, quality indicators, peer review in intensive care, IQM peer review, and various certification processes. The first version of German ICM quality indicators was published in 2010 by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional expert commission. Key figures, indicators, and national benchmarks are intended to describe the quality of structures, processes, and outcomes in intensive care. Many of the quality assurance tools have proved to be useful in clinical practice, but nationwide implementation still can be improved.

Indexed as

CertificationCritical CareEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationIntersectoral CollaborationPeer ReviewQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareCertificationCritical carePatient carePeer reviewQuality assurance, heathcare

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.