Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units
[english] Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer review...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | deu |
Published: |
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
2014-12-01
|
Series: | GMS German Medical Science |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/gms/2014-12/000202.shtml |
id |
doaj-c7dcf99c11aa40fe84749d57282dc063 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
deu |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Kumpf, Oliver Bloos, Frank Bause, Hanswerner Brinkmann, Alexander Deja, Maria Marx, Gernot Kaltwasser, Arnold Dubb, Rolf Muhl, Elke Greim, Clemens-A. Weiler, Norbert Chop, Ines Jonitz, Günther Schaefer, Henning Felsenstein, Matthias Liebeskind, Ursula Leffmann, Carsten Jungbluth, Annemarie Waydhas, Christian Pronovost, Peter Spies, Claudia Braun, Jan-Peter , |
spellingShingle |
Kumpf, Oliver Bloos, Frank Bause, Hanswerner Brinkmann, Alexander Deja, Maria Marx, Gernot Kaltwasser, Arnold Dubb, Rolf Muhl, Elke Greim, Clemens-A. Weiler, Norbert Chop, Ines Jonitz, Günther Schaefer, Henning Felsenstein, Matthias Liebeskind, Ursula Leffmann, Carsten Jungbluth, Annemarie Waydhas, Christian Pronovost, Peter Spies, Claudia Braun, Jan-Peter , Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units GMS German Medical Science peer review critical care patient safety quality improvement quality management |
author_facet |
Kumpf, Oliver Bloos, Frank Bause, Hanswerner Brinkmann, Alexander Deja, Maria Marx, Gernot Kaltwasser, Arnold Dubb, Rolf Muhl, Elke Greim, Clemens-A. Weiler, Norbert Chop, Ines Jonitz, Günther Schaefer, Henning Felsenstein, Matthias Liebeskind, Ursula Leffmann, Carsten Jungbluth, Annemarie Waydhas, Christian Pronovost, Peter Spies, Claudia Braun, Jan-Peter , |
author_sort |
Kumpf, Oliver |
title |
Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units |
title_short |
Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units |
title_full |
Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units |
title_fullStr |
Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units |
title_full_unstemmed |
Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units |
title_sort |
voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in german intensive care units |
publisher |
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House |
series |
GMS German Medical Science |
issn |
1612-3174 |
publishDate |
2014-12-01 |
description |
[english] Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports.Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs – representing over 300 patient beds – had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interestingConclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators. |
topic |
peer review critical care patient safety quality improvement quality management |
url |
http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/gms/2014-12/000202.shtml |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT kumpfoliver voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT bloosfrank voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT bausehanswerner voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT brinkmannalexander voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT dejamaria voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT marxgernot voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT kaltwasserarnold voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT dubbrolf voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT muhlelke voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT greimclemensa voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT weilernorbert voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT chopines voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT jonitzgunther voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT schaeferhenning voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT felsensteinmatthias voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT liebeskindursula voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT leffmanncarsten voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT jungbluthannemarie voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT waydhaschristian voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT pronovostpeter voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT spiesclaudia voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT braunjanpeter voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits AT voluntarypeerreviewasinnovativetoolforqualityimprovementintheintensivecareunitaretrospectivedescriptivecohortstudyingermanintensivecareunits |
_version_ |
1724719795062964224 |
spelling |
doaj-c7dcf99c11aa40fe84749d57282dc0632020-11-25T02:54:38ZdeuGerman Medical Science GMS Publishing HouseGMS German Medical Science1612-31742014-12-0112Doc1710.3205/000202Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care unitsKumpf, Oliver0Bloos, Frank1Bause, Hanswerner2Brinkmann, Alexander3Deja, Maria4Marx, Gernot5Kaltwasser, Arnold6Dubb, Rolf7Muhl, Elke8Greim, Clemens-A.9Weiler, Norbert10Chop, Ines11Jonitz, Günther12Schaefer, Henning13Felsenstein, Matthias14Liebeskind, Ursula15Leffmann, Carsten16Jungbluth, Annemarie17Waydhas, Christian18Pronovost, Peter19Spies, Claudia20Braun, Jan-Peter21, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, GermanyQuality Committee of the State Chamber of Physicians, Hamburg, GermanyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Heidenheim, Heidenheim, GermanyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Universitätsklinikum RWTH Aachen, Aachen, GermanyKreiskliniken Reutlingen GmbH, Reutlingen, GermanyKreiskliniken Reutlingen GmbH, Reutlingen, GermanyDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, GermanyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Fulda, Fulda, GermanyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, GermanyGerman Medical Association, Berlin, GermanyGerman Medical Association, Berlin, GermanyState Chamber of Physicians Berlin, Berlin, GermanyState Chamber of Physicians Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, GermanyState Chamber of Physicians Thüringen, Jena, GermanyState Chamber of Physicians Schleswig-Holstein, Bad Segeberg, GermanyState Chamber of Physicians Hamburg, Hamburg, GermanyTrauma Surgery Department, University Hospital Essen, GermanyThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Departments of Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine and Surgery, Baltimore, Maryland, United StatesDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Helios Klinikum Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany[english] Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports.Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs – representing over 300 patient beds – had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interestingConclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators. http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/gms/2014-12/000202.shtmlpeer reviewcritical carepatient safetyquality improvementquality management |