Quality in intensive care units: proposal of an assessment instrument.

Autor: de Carvalho AGR; Department of Public Health, Federal University of Maranhão, Rua Barão de Itapary, 155, Centro, São Luís, MA, CEP: 65020-070, Brazil. agrcarvalho@gmail.com.; Intensive Care Unit, UDI Hospital, Av. Professor Carlos Cunha, 2000, Jaracaty, São Luís, MA, CEP: 65076-820, Brazil. agrcarvalho@gmail.com., de Moraes APP; Intensive Care Service, Tarquínio Lopes Filho Hospital, Praça Neto Guterres, 2, Madre Deus, São Luís, MA, CEP: 65026-040, Brazil., Tanaka LMS; Nutritional Therapy Multidisciplinary Staff, Copa D'Or Hospital, Rua Figueiredo de Magalhães, 875, Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 22031-011, Brazil., Gomes RV; Department of Research, Unimed Rio Hospital, Av. Ayrton Senna, 2550, Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 22775-003, Brazil., da Silva AAM; Department of Public Health, Federal University of Maranhão, Rua Barão de Itapary, 155, Centro, São Luís, MA, CEP: 65020-070, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC research notes [BMC Res Notes] 2017 Jun 26; Vol. 10 (1), pp. 222. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Jun 26.
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-017-2563-3
Abstrakt: Background: There is an increasing need for standardized instruments for quality assessment that are able to reflect the actual conditions of the intensive care practices, especially in low and middle-income countries. The aim of this article is to describe the preparation of an instrument for quality assessment of adult intensive care services adapted to the actual conditions of intensive care in a middle-income country and comprising indicators validated in the literature.
Methods: The study consisted of five steps: (1) a literature survey; (2) a discussion with specialists by consensus method; (3) a pilot field test; (4) a description of indicators; and (5) an elaboration of the final version of the instrument. Each generated indicator was attributed a score ("out of standard" = 0; "below standard" = 1; "standard" = 2) that allowed calculation of the total score for each service assessed.
Results: A total of 62 indicators were constructed, distributed as follows: 38 structure indicators (physical structure: 4; human resources: 14; continued education and training: 2; protocols and routines: 12; material resources: 6); 17 process indicators (safety: 7; work: 10); and seven outcome indicators. The maximum possible total score was 124.
Conclusions: Possible future applications of the instrument for the assessment of intensive care units that was constructed in the present study include benchmarking, multicenter studies, self-assessment of intensive care units, and evaluation of changes resulting from interventions.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: