ArticleCritical care (London, England)2019
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the training needs assessment for critical care nurses.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Protocol for developing the nutrition dataset for the international spinal cord society: an international eDelphi approach.Spinal cord · 2025Article
- Development of a Quality Indicator Set for the Optimal Acute Management of Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Australian Context.Neurocritical care · 2025Article
- Adherence to and clinical utility of "quality indicators" for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a retrospective, multicenter study.Infection · 2024Article
- Development and first results of a national databank on care and treatment outcome after traumatic brain injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- An international survey of the structure and process of care for traumatic spinal cord injury in acute and rehabilitation facilities: lessons learned from a pilot study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research.The Lancet. Neurology · 2022Review
- Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries.Intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Neurocritical Care Performance Measures Derived from Electronic Health Record Data are Feasible and Reveal Site-Specific Variation: A CHoRUS Pilot Project.Neurocritical care · 2022Article
- Putting measurement on a diet: development of a core set of indicators for quality improvement in the ICU using a Delphi method.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Initial neurocritical care of severe traumatic brain injury: New paradigms and old challenges.Surgical neurology international · 2022Review
- Article
- Identification of quality gaps in healthcare services using the SERVQUAL instrument and importance-performance analysis in medical intensive care: a prospective study at a medical center in Taiwan.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Prospective multicentre multifaceted before-after implementation study of ICU delirium guidelines: a process evaluation.BMJ open quality · 2020Article
- Guidelines for Data Acquisition, Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD).Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.
methodsA preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.
resultsThe expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%).
conclusionsThis Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.