Nutritional therapy should follow evidence-based practice, thus several societies regarding nutrition and critical care have developed specific Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). However, to be regarded as trustworthy, the quality of the CPG for critically ill patients and its recommendations need to be high. This systematic review aimed to appraise the methodology and recommendations of nutrition CPG for critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review (protocol number CRD42020184199) with literature search conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and other four specific databases of guidelines up to October 2021. Two reviewers, independently, assessed titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full-text reports to determine eligibility and subsequently four reviewers appraised the guidelines quality using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX). Ten CPG for nutrition in critically ill patients were identified. Only Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine had a total acceptable quality and were recommended for daily practice according AGREE-II. None of the CPG recommendations had an overall quality score above 70 %, thus being classified as moderate quality according AGREE-REX. The methodological evaluation of the critically ill adult patient CPG revealed significant discrepancies and showed a need for improvement in its development and/or reporting. In addition, recommendations about nutrition care process presented a moderate quality.

The medication process requires clear and transparent documentation in patient records. Incomplete or incorrect medication documentation may contribute to inappropriate clinical decision-making and adverse events. To comprehensively assess the quality of in-hospital medication documentation, we developed a retrospective chart review (RCR) instrument. We report on the development process, the feasibility of the instrument and describe our application of the instrument to a sample of patient records.
Cross-sectional study using an RCR instrument to evaluate paper-based, non-standardised prescription and medication administration charts (MediDocQ).
Two German university hospitals.
Records from 1361 patients admitted between April and July 2015 were evaluated.
The MediDocQ development process comprised six consecutive stages: focused literature review, web-based search, initial patient record screening, review by project advisory board, focus groups with professionals and pilot testing. The final 54-item RCR instrument covers three key components of medication documentation: (1) completeness of documented information (including prescription, medication administration and pro re nata (PRN) medication), (2) quality of transcriptions and (3) compliance with chart structure, legibility, handling of deletions and chart corrections. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values, SD, median and interquartile ranges for individual items.
Overall, 33 out of 54 items resulted in mean values above 0.75, indicating high-quality medication documentation. Documentation quality was particularly compromised for verbal and PRN orders (which involve more steps than standard orders) and when documentation was not completed at the same time as medication administration.
MediDocQ is a patient safety instrument that can be used to evaluate the quality of medication documentation and identify components of the process where intervention is required. In our setting, standardisation of medication documentation, particularly regarding medication administration and PRN medication is a priority.

UNASSIGNED: Although many health care quality indicators have been defined for establishing a common, homogeneous, and reliable system for assessing emergency department care, less information is available on the use of indicators of quality in attending emergencies outside the hospital. We aimed to identify and analyze quality indicators that have appeared in the literature on out-of-hospital emergencies. This systematic review of the literature followed the ations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We developed protocols for searching 5 databases to locate studies using quality indicators to evaluate care in out-of-hospital emergencies. Studies were published between July 2017 and July 2018 in either English or Spanish. We identified 22 studies naming 333 quality indicators in out-of-hospital emergencies. The indicators were classified as clinical or nonclinical; within each of these 2 sets, we also identified domains, or subcategories. As nonclinical quality identifiers were more numerous in the literature, it seems that they are the ones most often used to assess out-of-hospital emergency care at this time. This finding leaves the door open to designing and implementing new indicators able to measure quality of care in this clinical setting.
UNASSIGNED: Aunque son muchos los indicadores de calidad (IC) definidos para establecer un sistema común, homogéneo y fiable de evaluación sobre la actividad en los servicios de urgencias, es escasa la información acerca de los IC relacionados con las emergencias atendidas en el ámbito extrahospitalario. El objetivo de este trabajo es identificar y analizar, a través de la literatura científica publicada, los IC específicos de dicha atención ante emergencias fuera del contexto hospitalario. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura según las recomendaciones PRISMA. Se exploraron 5 bases de datos y se elaboraron protocolos de búsqueda para localizar estudios que aportasen información sobre IC para evaluar la atención en emergencias extrahospitalarias, entre noviembre de 2017 y julio de 2018, tanto en inglés como en español. Se analizaron un total de 22 estudios y se identificaron un total de 333 IC en emergencias extrahospitalarias que fueron clasificados en clínicos y no clínicos, con sus subdominios correspondientes para cada grupo. El número de IC no clínicos identificados en la búsqueda fue superior, pudiendo concluir que son los más utilizados para evaluar la atención en las emergencias extrahospitalarias en la actualidad y dejando la puerta abierta para el diseño e implementación de nuevos IC capaces de evaluar la actividad fuera del contexto hospitalario.

Introduction Historically, the quality and performance of prehospital emergency care (PEC) has been assessed largely based on surrogate, non-clinical endpoints such as response time intervals or other crude measures of care (eg, stakeholder satisfaction). However, advances in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems and services world-wide have seen their scope and reach continue to expand. This has dictated that novel measures of performance be implemented to compliment this growth. Significant progress has been made in this area, largely in the form of the development of evidence-informed quality indicators (QIs) of PEC. Problem Quality indicators represent an increasingly popular component of health care quality and performance measurement. However, little is known about the development of QIs in the PEC environment. The purpose of this study was to assess the development and characteristics of PEC-specific QIs in the literature.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted through a search of PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA); EMBase (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands); CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA); and the Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, United Kingdom). To increase the sensitivity of the literature, a search of the grey literature and review of select websites was additionally conducted. Articles were selected that proposed at least one PEC QI and whose aim was to discuss, analyze, or promote quality measurement in the PEC environment.
RESULTS: The majority of research (n=25 articles) was published within the last decade (68.0%) and largely originated within the USA (68.0%). Delphi and observational methodologies were the most commonly employed for QI development (28.0%). A total of 331 QIs were identified via the article review, with an additional 15 QIs identified via the website review. Of all, 42.8% were categorized as primarily Clinical, with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest contributing the highest number within this domain (30.4%). Of the QIs categorized as Non-Clinical (57.2%), Time-Based Intervals contributed the greatest number (28.8%). Population on Whom the Data Collection was Constructed made up the most commonly reported QI component (79.8%), followed by a Descriptive Statement (63.6%). Least reported were Timing of Data Collection (12.1%) and Timing of Reporting (12.1%). Pilot testing of the QIs was reported on 34.7% of QIs identified in the review.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is considerable interest in the understanding and development of PEC quality measurement. However, closer attention to the details and reporting of QIs is required for research of this type to be more easily extrapolated and generalized. Howard I , Cameron P , Wallis L , Castren M , Lindstrom V . Quality indicators for evaluating prehospital emergency care: a scoping review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):43-52.

Web users are increasingly encouraged to rate and review consumer services (eg, hotels, restaurants) and, more recently, this is also the case for physicians and medical services. The resemblance in the setup and design of commercial rating websites (CRWs) and Web-based physician rating websites (PRWs) raises the question of whether choice-making processes based on the two types of websites could also be similar.
This qualitative study sought to explore the extent to which consumer decision making based on Web-based reviews is the same for consumer services (ie, choice of a hotel) and health services (ie, choice of a pediatrician), while providing an in-depth understanding of potential differences or similarities.
Between June and August 2015, we carried out a total of 22 qualitative interviews with young parents residing in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Participants were invited to complete 2 choice tasks, which involved (1) choosing a hotel based on the commercial Web-based rating website TripAdvisor and (2) selecting a pediatrician based on the PRW Jameda. To better understand consumers\' thought processes, we instructed participants to \"think aloud\", namely to verbalize their thinking while sorting through information and reaching decisions. Using a semistructured interview guide, we subsequently posed open-ended questions to allow them to elaborate more on factors influencing their decision making, level of confidence in their final choice, and perceived differences and similarities in their search for a hotel and a physician. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.
Participants spent on average 9:57 minutes (standard deviation=9:22, minimum=3:46, maximum=22:25) searching for a hotel and 6:17 minutes (standard deviation=4:47, minimum=00:38, maximum=19:25) searching for a pediatrician. Although the choice of a pediatrician was perceived as more important than the choice of a hotel, participants found choosing a physician much easier than selecting an appropriate accommodation. Four main themes emerged from the analysis of our interview data that can explain the differences in search time and choice confidence: (1) trial and error, (2) trust, (3) competence assessment, and (4) affect and likeability.
Our results suggest that, despite congruent website designs, individuals only trust review information to choose a hotel, but refuse to fully rely on it for selecting a physician. The design and content of Web-based PRWs need to be adjusted to better address the differing information needs of health consumers.

External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews were held with clinicians, oncology nurses, and managers from fifteen general hospitals that participated in three rounds of peer review over a period of 16 years. Interviewees reflected on the goals and expectations, experiences, perceived impact, and future role of external peer review. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded to discover recurrent themes. Improving clinical care and organization were the main motives for participation. Positive impact was perceived on multiple aspects of care such as shared responsibilities, internal prioritization of cancer care, improved communication, and a clear structure and position of cancer care within general hospitals. Establishing a direct relationship between the external peer review and organizational or clinical impact proved to be difficult. Criticism was raised on the content of the program being too theoretical and organization-focussed after three rounds. According to most stakeholders, external peer review can improve multidisciplinary team work in cancer care; however, the acceptance is threatened by a perceived disbalance between effort and visible clinical impact. Leaner and more clinically focused programs are needed to keep repeated peer reviews challenging and worthwhile.