A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Measuring quality indicators to improve pain management in critically ill patients. | LitMetric

Measuring quality indicators to improve pain management in critically ill patients.

J Crit Care

Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, The Netherlands; National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Published: February 2019

Purpose: To evaluate the quality of pain assessment in Dutch ICUs and its room for improvement.

Materials And Methods: We used a modified RAND method to develop pain assessment indicators. We measured performance on the indicators using retrospectively collected pain measurement data from Dutch ICUs, which are all mixed medical - surgical, of three months within October 2016-May 2017. We assessed the room for improvement, feasibility of data collection, and reliability of the indicators.

Results: We defined four pain assessment indicators. We analyzed 45,688 patient-shift observations from 15 ICUs. In 69.2% (IQR 58.7-84.9) of the patient-shifts pain was measured at least once (indicator 1); in 56.7% (IQR 49.6-73.5) pain scores were acceptable (indicator 2); in 11.7% (IQR 5.6-26.4) pain measurements with unacceptable scores were repeated within 1 h (indicator 3); and in 10.9% (IQR 5.1-20.1) unacceptable scores normalized within 1 h (indicator 4). We found data collection feasible because data were available for >79.3% of the admissions, and all indicators reliable as they produced consistent performance scores.

Conclusions: There is substantial variation in pain assessment across Dutch ICUs, and ample room for improvement. With this study we took a first step towards quality assurance of pain assessment in Dutch ICUs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.10.027DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pain assessment
20
dutch icus
16
assessment dutch
12
pain
10
assessment indicators
8
room improvement
8
data collection
8
unacceptable scores
8
1 h indicator
8
indicators
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!