Linking of global intensive care (LOGIC): An international benchmarking in critical care initiative

Quality improvement of Dutch ICUs from 2009 to 2021: A registry based observational study

PURPOSE

To investigate the development in quality of ICU care over time using the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included data from all ICU admissions in the Netherlands from those ICUs that submitted complete data between 2009 and 2021 to the NICE registry. We determined median and interquartile range for eight quality indicators. To evaluate changes over time on the indicators, we performed multilevel regression analyses, once without and once with the COVID-19 years 2020 and 2021 included. Additionally we explored between-ICU heterogeneity by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

705,822 ICU admissions from 55 (65%) ICUs were included in the analyses. ICU length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), readmissions, in-hospital mortality, hypoglycemia, and pressure ulcers decreased significantly between 2009 and 2019 (OR <1). After including the COVID-19 pandemic years, the significant change in MV duration, ICU LOS, and pressure ulcers disappeared. We found an ICC ≤0.07 on the quality indicators for all years, except for pressure ulcers with an ICC of 0.27 for 2009 to 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of Dutch ICU care based on seven indicators significantly improved from 2009 to 2019 and between-ICU heterogeneity is medium to small, except for pressure ulcers. The COVID-19 pandemic disturbed the trend in quality improvement, but unaltered the between-ICU heterogeneity.

Non-COVID-19 intensive care admissions during the pandemic: a multinational registry-based study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large number of critical care admissions. While national reports have described the outcomes of patients with COVID-19, there is limited international data of the pandemic impact on non-COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment.

METHODS

We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry.

FINDINGS

Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes.

INTERPRETATION

Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles.

National ICU Registries as Enablers of Clinical Research and Quality Improvement

OBJECTIVES

Clinical quality registries (CQRs) have been implemented worldwide by several medical specialties aiming to generate a better characterization of epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of patients. National ICU registries were created almost 3 decades ago to improve the understanding of case-mix, resource use, and outcomes of critically ill patients. This narrative review describes the challenges, proposed solutions, and evidence generated by National ICU registries as facilitators for research and quality improvement.

DATA SOURCES

English language articles were identified in PubMed using phrases related to ICU registries, CQRs, outcomes, and case-mix.

STUDY SELECTION

Original research, review articles, letters, and commentaries, were considered.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data from relevant literature were identified, reviewed, and integrated into a concise narrative review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

CQRs have been implemented worldwide by several medical specialties aiming to generate a better characterization of epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of patients. National ICU registries were created almost 3 decades ago to improve the understanding of case-mix, resource use, and outcomes of critically ill patients. The initial experience in European countries and in Oceania ensured that through locally generated data, ICUs could assess their performances by using risk-adjusted measures and compare their results through fair and validated benchmarking metrics with other ICUs contributing to the CQR. The accomplishment of these initiatives, coupled with the increasing adoption of information technology, resulted in a broad geographic expansion of CQRs as well as their use in quality improvement studies, clinical trials as well as international comparisons, and benchmarking for ICUs.

CONCLUSIONS

ICU registries have provided increased knowledge of case-mix and outcomes of ICU patients based on real-world data and contributed to improve care delivery through quality improvement initiatives and trials. Recent increases in adoption of new technologies (i.e., cloud-based structures, artificial intelligence, machine learning) will ensure a broader and better use of data for epidemiology, healthcare policies, quality improvement, and clinical trials.

Obtaining feedback from patients and their family in the emergency department

Obtaining feedback from the patient and their family members regarding their experience of the care they received in the emergency department is important. This provides an extremely valuable opportunity for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of care and serves to highlight any areas of weakness or strength in the care experience. Through a synthesis of available literature, this article describes the challenges in measuring such an experience especially in emergency departments in Africa, and outlines tools that are currently available in literature to measure the patient and family experience and or satisfaction. Implementation considerations are outlined in order to provide recommendations for emergency department healthcare professionals wanting to undertake such assessments.

Benchmarking of survival outcomes following Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT): an update of the ongoing project of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT and EBMT (JACIE)

From 2016 EBMT and JACIE developed an international risk-adapted benchmarking program of haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) outcome to provide individual EBMT Centers with a means of quality-assuring the HSCT process and meeting FACT-JACIE accreditation requirements relating to 1-year survival outcomes. Informed by previous experience from Europe, North America and Australasia, the Clinical Outcomes Group (COG) established criteria for patient and Center selection, and a set of key clinical variables within a dedicated statistical model adapted to the capabilities of the EBMT Registry. The first phase of the project was launched in 2019 to test the acceptability of the benchmarking model through assessment of Centers' performance for 1-year data completeness and survival outcomes of autologous and allogeneic HSCT covering 2013-2016. A second phase was delivered in July 2021 covering 2015-2019 and including survival outcomes. Reports of individual Center performance were shared directly with local principal investigators and their responses were assimilated. The experience thus far has supported the feasibility, acceptability and reliability of the system as well as identifying its limitations. We provide a summary of experience and learning so far in this 'work in progress', as well as highlighting future challenges of delivering a modern, robust, data-complete, risk-adapted benchmarking program across new EBMT Registry systems.

An exploration into physician and surgeon data sensemaking: a qualitative systematic review using thematic synthesis

Providing electronic health data to medical practitioners to reflect on their performance can lead to improved clinical performance and quality of care. Understanding the sensemaking process that is enacted when practitioners are presented with such data is vital to ensure an improvement in performance. Thus, the primary objective of this research was to explore physician and surgeon sensemaking when presented with electronic health data associated with their clinical performance. A systematic literature review was conducted to analyse qualitative research that explored physicians and surgeons experiences with electronic health data associated with their clinical performance published between January 2010 and March 2022. Included articles were assessed for quality, thematically synthesised, and discussed from the perspective of sensemaking. The initial search strategy for this review returned 8,829 articles that were screened at title and abstract level. Subsequent screening found 11 articles that met the eligibility criteria and were retained for analyses. Two articles met all of the standards within the chosen quality assessment (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, SRQR). Thematic synthesis generated five overarching themes: data communication, performance reflection, infrastructure, data quality, and risks. The confidence of such findings is reported using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). The way the data is communicated can impact sensemaking which has implications on what is learned and has impact on future performance. Many factors including data accuracy, validity, infrastructure, culture can also impact sensemaking and have ramifications on future practice. Providing data in order to support performance reflection is not without risks, both behavioural and affective. The latter of which can impact the practitioner's ability to effectively make sense of the data. An important consideration when data is presented with the intent to improve performance.Registration This systematic review was registered with Prospero, registration number: CRD42020197392.

Performance evaluation of a multinational data platform for critical care in Asia

Background: The value of medical registries strongly depends on the quality of the data collected. This must be objectively measured before large clinical databases can be promoted for observational research, quality improvement, and clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the quality of a multinational intensive care unit (ICU) network of registries of critically ill patients established in seven Asian low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: The Critical Care Asia federated registry platform enables ICUs to collect clinical, outcome and process data for aggregate and unit-level analysis. The evaluation used the standardised criteria of the Directory of Clinical Databases (DoCDat) and a framework for data quality assurance in medical registries. Six reviewers assessed structure, coverage, reliability and validity of the ICU registry data. Case mix and process measures on patient episodes from June to December 2020 were analysed. Results: Data on 20,507 consecutive patient episodes from 97 ICUs in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam were included. The quality level achieved according to the ten prespecified DoCDat criteria was high (average score 3.4 out of 4) as was the structural and organizational performance -- comparable to ICU registries in high-income countries. Identified strengths were types of variables included, reliability of coding, data completeness and validation. Potential improvements included extension of national coverage, optimization of recruitment completeness validation in all centers and the use of interobserver reliability checks. Conclusions: The Critical Care Asia platform evaluates well using standardised frameworks for data quality and equally to registries in resource-rich settings.

Performance evaluation of a multinational data platform for critical care in Asia

Background: The value of medical registries strongly depends on the quality of the data collected. This must be objectively measured before large clinical databases can be promoted for observational research, quality improvement, and clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the quality of a multinational intensive care unit (ICU) network of registries of critically ill patients established in seven Asian low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: The Critical Care Asia federated registry platform enables ICUs to collect clinical, outcome and process data for aggregate and unit-level analysis. The evaluation used the standardised criteria of the Directory of Clinical Databases (DoCDat) and a framework for data quality assurance in medical registries. Six reviewers assessed structure, coverage, reliability and validity of the ICU registry data. Case mix and process measures on patient episodes from June to December 2020 were analysed. Results: Data on 20,507 consecutive patient episodes from 97 ICUs in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam were included. The quality level achieved according to the ten prespecified DoCDat criteria was high (average score 3.4 out of 4) as was the structural and organizational performance -- comparable to ICU registries in high-income countries. Identified strengths were types of variables included, reliability of coding, data completeness and validation. Potential improvements included extension of national coverage, optimization of recruitment completeness validation in all centers and the use of interobserver reliability checks. Conclusions: The Critical Care Asia platform evaluates well using standardised frameworks for data quality and equally to registries in resource-rich settings.

A comparison of outcomes and survival between Victoria and Denmark in lung cancer surgery: opportunities for international benchmarking

BACKGROUNDS

Victoria (Australia) and Denmark have comparable population sizes and high-quality healthcare systems. Lung cancer surgery, however, is performed in more than 20 Victorian hospitals compared to four in Denmark. Such differences in centralization may influence outcomes. We engaged clinical quality registries to enable international benchmarking by exploring patterns of lung cancer surgery including mortality and survival.

METHODS

All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2015 and 2018 registered in the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry and the Danish Lung Cancer Registry were included. Analyses on stage concordance, 30 and 90-day mortality, and overall survival were restricted to a selected subgroup with NSCLC and no neo-adjuvant therapy or metastatic disease and only one operation.

RESULTS

We included 1554 Victorian and 4319 Danish patients. The resection rate was 26.3% in Victoria and 28% in Denmark, but a higher proportion of Victorian patients underwent wedge resection (19.1% versus 8.8%). Stage concordance was 59.6% and 54.9% in Victoria and Denmark, respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality was 1.3% and 2.6% in Victoria, compared to 1.4% and 2.8% in Denmark with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.28) or risk-adjusted survival (HR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.89-1.37); p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

High-quality surgical lung cancer care was confirmed by similar high resection and low mortality rates including no overall survival difference. The drivers and consequences of stage discordance and differences in patterns of resection deserve further exploration. This study provides a model for international benchmarking using clinical quality registries, although caution remains in the interpretation given disparities in data completeness.

The long-term ICU patient: Which definition?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To offer a review of the differing terminologies used by clinicians and researchers to describe the long-term intensive care unit (ICU) patient and the underlying propositions that align with this terminology.

BACKGROUND

Ongoing medical and technological advances in emergency and intensive care have resulted in improved survival of critically ill patients in recent decades. In addition, these advancements have also resulted in improved survival of complex critically ill patients who progress to a trajectory of prolonged critical illness, having protracted stays in the ICU. There is great variability in terminology used to define the long-term ICU patient. This lack of a common definition for long-term ICU patients is problematic, increasing their vulnerability and risk of care not being centred about their unique needs.

DESIGN

In this discursive article, we explore the terminology used to define the long-term ICU patient. An initial broad search of the literature across four electronic databases was conducted to identify common terminology used to define the long-term ICU patient. From here, seven definitions were identified and chosen for inclusion in the review as they meet inclusion criteria and clearly described a group of patients who have an extended ICU stay. The seven selected terms are as follows: prolonged mechanical ventilation; failure to wean; insertion of tracheostomy; chronically critically ill; persistent critical illness; persistent inflammatory-immunosuppressive and catabolic syndrome; and frailty. Following this a focused review of the literature with the selected terms was conducted to explore in greater detail the terminology.

DISCUSSION

The lack of clear definition for this patient group can potentiate their care needs being unmet. Acknowledgement of the need to clearly define this patient group is the first step to improve outcomes. Nursing is well positioned to recognise the different terminologies use to describe this group of patients and implement care to suit their unique clinical characteristics.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Recognition and standardisation of these terms are an important priority to pave the way to improve care pathways and outcomes for this group of patients and their family.