ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Recommendations for the specialist further training of nursing personnel on intensive care units in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a modified Delphi procedure with experts].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe medical development in the previous 15 years and the changes in treatment reality of the comprehensive elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms necessitate a re-evaluation of the quality assurance guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee in Germany (QBAA-RL). In the current version this requires a specialist further training quota for nursing personnel in intensive care wards of 50%. The quota was determined in 2008 based on expert opinions, although a direct empirical evidence base for this does not exist.
methodsRepresentatives from the fields of patient representation, physicians, nursing personnel and other relevant interface areas were invited to participate in a modified Delphi procedure. Following a comprehensive narrative literature search, a survey and focus group discussions with national and international experts, a total of three anonymized online-based voting rounds were carried out for which previously determined key statements were assessed with a 4‑point Likert scale (totally disagree up to totally agree). In addition, the expert panel had also defined a recommendation for a minimum quota for the specialist training of nursing personnel on intensive care wards in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, whereby an a priori agreement of 80% of the participants was defined as the consensus limit.
resultsOverall, 37 experts participated in the discussions and three successive voting rounds (participation rate 89%). The panel confirmed the necessity of a re-evaluation of the guideline recommendations and recommended the introduction of a shift-related minimum quota of 30% of the full-time equivalent of nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the introduction of structured promotional programs for long-term elevation of the quota.
conclusionIn this national Delphi procedure with medical and nursing experts as well as representatives of patients, the fundamental benefits and needs of professional specialist qualifications in the field of intensive care medicine were confirmed. The corresponding minimum quota for specialist further training of intensive care nursing personnel should generally apply without limitations to specific groups. The expert panel stipulates a shift-related minimum quota for intensive care nursing personnel with specialist training of 30% of the nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the obligatory introduction of structured and transparent promotion programs for the long-term enhancement.
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.