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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: 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,
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