| Title |
Development of key interventions and quality indicators for the management of an adult potential donor after brain death: a RAND modified Delphi approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3386-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pieter Hoste, Eric Hoste, Patrick Ferdinande, Koenraad Vandewoude, Dirk Vogelaers, Ann Van Hecke, Xavier Rogiers, Kristof Eeckloo, Kris Vanhaecht, on behalf of the Donation after Brain Death Study Group |
| Abstract |
A substantial degree of variability in practices exists amongst donor hospitals regarding the donor detection, determination of brain death, application of donor management techniques or achievement of donor management goals. A possible strategy to standardize the donation process and to optimize outcomes could lie in the implementation of a care pathway. The aim of the study was to identify and select a set of relevant key interventions and quality indicators in order to develop a specific care pathway for donation after brain death and to rigorously evaluate its impact. A RAND modified three-round Delphi approach was used to build consensus within a single country about potential key interventions and quality indicators identified in existing guidelines, review articles, process flow diagrams and the results of the Organ Donation European Quality System (ODEQUS) project. Comments and additional key interventions and quality indicators, identified in the first round, were evaluated in the following rounds and a subsequent physical meeting. The study was conducted over a 4-month time period in 2016. A multidisciplinary panel of 18 Belgian experts with different relevant backgrounds completed the three Delphi rounds. Out of a total of 80 key interventions assessed throughout the Delphi process, 65 were considered to contribute to the quality of care for the management of a potential donor after brain death; 11 out of 12 quality indicators were validated for relevance and feasibility. Detection of all potential donors after brain death in the intensive care unit and documentation of cause of no donation were rated as the most important quality indicators. Using a RAND modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached for a set of 65 key interventions and 11 quality indicators for the management of a potential donor after brain death. This set is considered to be applicable in quality improvement programs for the care of potential donors after brain death, while taking into account each country's legislation and regulations regarding organ donation and transplantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 4 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#5,899,753
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,562
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,013
of 331,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#104
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.