ArticleCritical care explorations2024
Codesign of a Quality Improvement Tool for Adults With Prolonged Critical Illness: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2024. 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.
- From Opinions to Outcomes: Optimizing Survey Methods and Principles Applicable to the Delphi Process in Critical Care Research.Critical care explorations · 2026Review
- Implementation of a Quality Improvement Tool "Recover25" to Guide the Care of Patients Experiencing Prolonged Critical Illness: A Mixed-Method Feasibility Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
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
objectivesIncreasing numbers of patients experience a prolonged stay in intensive care. Yet existing quality improvement (QI) tools used to improve safety and standardize care are not designed for their specific needs. This may result in missed opportunities for care and contribute to worse outcomes. Following an experience-based codesign process, our objective was to build consensus on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness.
designItems were identified from a previous systematic review and interviews with former patients, their care partners, and clinicians. Two rounds of an online modified Delphi survey were undertaken, and participants were asked to rate each item from 1 to 9 in terms of importance for effective care; where 1-3 was not important, 4-6 was important but not critical, and 7-9 was critically important for inclusion in the QI tool. A final consensus meeting was then moderated by an independent facilitator to further discuss and prioritize items.
settingCarried out in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Former patients who experienced a stay of over 7 days in intensive care, their family members and ICU staff.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe recruited 116 participants: 63 healthcare professionals (54%), 45 patients (39%), and eight relatives (7%), to Delphi round 1, and retained 91 (78%) in round 2. Of the 39 items initially identified, 32 were voted "critically important" for inclusion in the QI tool by more than 70% of Delphi participants. These were prioritized further in a consensus meeting with 15 ICU clinicians, four former patients and one family member, and the final QI tool contains 25 items, including promoting patient and family involvement in decisions, providing continuity of care, and structured ventilator weaning and rehabilitation.
conclusionsUsing experience-based codesign and rigorous consensus-building methods we identified important content for a QI tool for adults with prolonged critical illness. Work is underway to understand tool acceptability and optimum implementation strategies.
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.