3.8 Article

Improving comfort and communication in the ICU: a practical new tool for palliative care performance measurement and feedback

Journal

QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 264-271

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2005.017707

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [K02 AG024476] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop a practical set of measures for routine monitoring, performance feedback, and improvement in the quality of palliative care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design: Use of an interdisciplinary iterative process to create a prototype bundle'' of indicators within previously established domains of ICU palliative care quality; operationalization of indicators as specified measures; and pilot implementation to evaluate feasibility and baseline ICU performance. Setting: The national Transformation of the Intensive Care Unit program developed in the United States by VHA Inc. Patients: Critically ill patients in ICUs for 1, >3, and >5 days. Measurements and main results: Palliative care processes including identification of patient preferences and decision making surrogates, communication between clinicians and patients/families, social and spiritual support, and pain assessment and management, as documented in medical records. Application is triggered by specified lengths of ICU stay. Pilot testing in 19 ICUs ( review of >100 patients' records) documented feasibility, while revealing opportunities for quality improvement in clinician-patient/family communication and other key components of ICU palliative care. Conclusions: The new bundle of measures is a prototype for routine measurement of the quality of palliative care in the ICU. Further investigation is needed to confirm associations between measured processes and outcomes of importance to patients and families, as well as other aspects of validity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available