4.6 Article

International standards for programmes of training in intensive care medicine in Europe

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 385-393

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-010-2096-x

关键词

Intensive care; Critical care; Training; Accreditation; Standards; Quality assurance; CoBaTrICE

资金

  1. European Union
  2. University of Birmingham
  3. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
  4. Cardiff University
  5. University of Maastricht
  6. University of Mater Misericordiae
  7. CYber Imagination and the simulation group SAInT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To develop internationally harmonised standards for programmes of training in intensive care medicine (ICM). Standards were developed by using consensus techniques. A nine-member nominal group of European intensive care experts developed a preliminary set of standards. These were revised and refined through a modified Delphi process involving 28 European national coordinators representing national training organisations using a combination of moderated discussion meetings, email, and a Web-based tool for determining the level of agreement with each proposed standard, and whether the standard could be achieved in the respondent's country. The nominal group developed an initial set of 52 possible standards which underwent four iterations to achieve maximal consensus. All national coordinators approved a final set of 29 standards in four domains: training centres, training programmes, selection of trainees, and trainers' profiles. Only three standards were considered immediately achievable by all countries, demonstrating a willingness to aspire to quality rather than merely setting a minimum level. Nine proposed standards which did not achieve full consensus were identified as potential candidates for future review. This preliminary set of clearly defined and agreed standards provides a transparent framework for assuring the quality of training programmes, and a foundation for international harmonisation and quality improvement of training in ICM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据