Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 22;10(10):e0140141.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140141. eCollection 2015.

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care

Henry T Stelfox  1 , Daniel J Niven  1 , Fiona M Clement  2 , Sean M Bagshaw  3 , Deborah J Cook  4 , Emily McKenzie  5 , Melissa L Potestio  6 , Christopher J Doig  7 , Barbara O'Neill  8 , David Zygun  3 ; Critical Care Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services
Collaborators, Affiliations

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care

Henry T Stelfox et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Large amounts of scientific evidence are generated, but not implemented into patient care (the 'knowledge-to-care' gap). We identified and prioritized knowledge-to-care gaps in critical care as opportunities to improve the quality and value of healthcare.

Methods: We used a multi-method community-based participatory research approach to engage a Network of all adult (n = 14) and pediatric (n = 2) medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in a fully integrated geographically defined healthcare system serving 4 million residents. Participants included Network oversight committee members (n = 38) and frontline providers (n = 1,790). Network committee members used a modified RAND/University of California Appropriateness Methodology, to serially propose, rate (validated 9 point scale) and revise potential knowledge-to-care gaps as priorities for improvement. The priorities were sent to frontline providers for evaluation. Results were relayed back to all frontline providers for feedback.

Results: Initially, 68 knowledge-to-care gaps were proposed, rated and revised by the committee (n = 32 participants) over 3 rounds of review and resulted in 13 proposed priorities for improvement. Then, 1,103 providers (62% response rate) evaluated the priorities, and rated 9 as 'necessary' (median score 7-9). Several factors were associated with rating priorities as necessary in multivariable logistic regression, related to the provider (experience, teaching status of ICU) and topic (strength of supporting evidence, potential to benefit the patient, potential to improve patient/family experience, potential to decrease costs).

Conclusions: A community-based participatory research approach engaged a diverse group of stakeholders to identify 9 priorities for improving the quality and value of critical care. The approach was time and cost efficient and could serve as a model to prioritize areas for research quality improvement across other settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow Chart of Priorities for Improvement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation science: IS. 2012;7:50 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington DC: 2001.
    1. Davis D, Evans M, Jadad A, Perrier L, Rath D, Ryan D, et al. The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ. 2003;327(7405):33–5. 10.1136/bmj.327.7405.33 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kitson AL, Straus SE. Identifying knowledge to action gaps In: Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge Translation in Health Care. Oxford: BMJ Books; 2013. p. 97–109.
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1 Epub 2014 Jan 8. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types