Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29358441›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Monitoring intensive care unit performance-impact of a novel individualised performance scorecard in critical care medicine: a mixed-methods study protocol.

Shannon M Fernando, David Neilipovitz, Aimee J Sarti, Erin Rosenberg, Rabia Ishaq, Mary Thornton, John Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Shannon M FernandoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4549-4289
David NeilipovitzDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Aimee J SartiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Erin RosenbergDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Rabia IshaqDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Mary ThorntonDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
John KimDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients admitted to a critical care medicine (CCM) environment, including an intensive care unit (ICU), are susceptible to harm and significant resource utilisation. Therefore, a strategy to optimise provider performance is required. Performance scorecards are used by institutions for the purposes of driving quality improvement. There is no widely accepted or standardised scorecard that has been used for overall CCM performance. We aim to improve quality of care, patient safety and patient/family experience in CCM practice through the utilisation of a standardised, repeatable and multidimensional performance scorecard, designed to provide a continuous review of ICU physician and nurse practice, as well as departmental metrics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a mixed-methods, controlled before and after study to assess the impact of a CCM-specific quality scorecard. Scorecard metrics were developed through expert consensus and existing literature. The study will include 19 attending CCM physicians and approximately 300 CCM nurses. Patient data for scorecard compilation are collected daily from bedside flow sheets. Preintervention baseline data will be collected for 6 months for each participant. After this, each participant will receive their scorecard measures. Following a 3-month washout period, postintervention data will be collected for 6 months. The primary outcome will be change in performance metrics following the provision of scorecard feedback to subjects. A cost analysis will also be performed, with the purpose of comparing total ICU costs prior to implementation of the scorecard with total ICU costs following implementation of the scorecard. The qualitative portion will include interviews with participants following the intervention phase. Interviews will be analysed in order to identify recurrent themes and subthemes, for the purposes of driving scorecard improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the local research ethics board. Publication of results is anticipated in 2019. If this intervention is found to improve patient- and unit-directed outcomes, with evidence of cost-effectiveness, it would support the utilisation of such a scorecard as a quality standard in CCM.

Indexed as

Work PerformanceCosts and Cost AnalysisCritical CareHealth PersonnelHumansIntensive Care UnitsOntarioPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementResearch Designqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID29358441
PMCPMC5781100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.