• Johannes Wacker, Guy Haller, HendrickxJan F AJFA, and Martin Ponschab.
• From the University of Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland (JW), Institute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Hirslanden Clinic, Zurich (JW), Department of Acute Care Medicine, Division of Anesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (GH), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Health Services Management and Research Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (GH), Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, OLV Hospital, Aalst (JFAH), Department of Basic and Applied Medical Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent (JFAH), Department of Anesthesiology, UZLeuven, Leuven, Belgium & Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KULeuven, Leuven, Belgium (JFAH), Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, AUVA Research Centre, Vienna (MP), Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, AUVA Trauma Hospital Linz, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria (MP).
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2024 Sep 12; 41 (11): 800812800-12.

BackgroundTo capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologist Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.DesignA cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.SettingThe 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.ParticipantsRepresentatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.Main Outcome MeasuresQIs reported by NAS.ResultsOnly 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.ConclusionsFew NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.Trial RegistrationNo registration.Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

9 keywords...

hide…