|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Quality of care in sepsis management: development and testing of measures for improvement|
Davey, Peter G
patient safety agreement
|Citation:||Marwick C, Watts E, Evans J & Davey PG (2007) Quality of care in sepsis management: development and testing of measures for improvement, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 60 (3), pp. 694-697.|
|Abstract:||Objectives: To develop and test a set of measures of quality of care in the process of sepsis management, to determine the inter-rater reliability of case-note review in assessment of these measures and to assess our current standard of care. Methods: Five measures of process of care and one of outcome were identified from the literature review and previous experience. Failure modes and effects analysis was used by a multidisciplinary team to validate these measures and prioritize them in terms of associated risk. Forty sets of case notes were reviewed by two independent teams and the inter-rater reliability was determined using observed percentage agreement and the kappa statistic. We used the data to calculate the proportion of patients in whom we are currently meeting targets for good quality of care. Results: The multidisciplinary team did not identify any additional areas of concern and assigned the highest risk priority to a delay of over 4 h from recognition of sepsis to antibiotic administration. The inter-rater agreement was greater than 80% for four of the measures, but was only 62.5% for appropriateness of antibiotic therapy. Room for improvement in practice exists, for example, antibiotic administration within 4 h was not achieved in 40% of patients. Conclusions: Four of our five measures of care are suitable for use in assessing the effect of interventions aimed at improving sepsis management, with at least moderate inter-rater reliability. Specific areas where increased clarity should improve agreement further have been identified|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|charispaper.pdf||68.45 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.