Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA LE MODIFICHE in fondo alla pagina
Bicocca Open Archive
Introduction: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Methods: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. Results: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. Conclusion: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.
Cnossen, M., Polinder, S., Lingsma, H., Maas, A., Menon, D., Steyerberg, E., et al. (2016). Variation in structure and process of care in traumatic brain injury: Provider profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. PLOS ONE, 11(8) [10.1371/journal.pone.0161367].
Variation in structure and process of care in traumatic brain injury: Provider profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study
Cnossen M. C.;Polinder S.;Lingsma H. F.
;Maas A. I. R.
;Menon D.
;Steyerberg E. W.;Adams H.;Alessandro M.;Allanson J.;Amrein K.;Andaluz N.;Andelic N.;Andrea N.;Andreassen L.;Anke A.;Antoni A.;Ardon H.;Audibert G.;Auslands K.;Azouvi P.;Baciu C.;Bacon A.;Badenes R.;Baglin T.;Bartels R.;Barzo P.;Bauerfeind U.;Beer R.;Belda F. J.;Bellander B. -M.;Belli A.;Bellier R.;Benali H.;Benard T.;Berardino M.;Beretta L.;Beynon C.;Bilotta F.;Binder H.;Biqiri E.;Blaabjerg M.;Borgen L. S.;Bouzat P.;Bragge P.;Brazinova A.;Brehar F.;Brorsson C.;Buki A.;Bullinger M.;Buckova V.;Calappi E.;Cameron P.;Carbayo L. G.;Carise E.;Carpenter C.;Castano-Leon A. M.;Causin F.;Chevallard G.;Chieregato A.;Citerio G.;Coburn M. C.;Coles J.;Cooper J. D.;Correia M.;Covic A.;Curry N.;Czeiter E.;Czosnyka M.;Dahyot-Fizelier C.;Damas F.;Damas P.;Dawes H.;De Keyser V.;Della Corte F.;Depreitere B.;Ding S.;Dippel D.;Dizdarevic K.;Duliere G. -L.;Dzeko A.;Eapen G.;Engemann H.;Ercole A.;Esser P.;Ezer E.;Fabricius M.;Feigin V. L.;Feng J.;Foks K.;Fossi F.;Francony G.;Frantzen J.;Freo U.;Frisvold S.;Furmanov A.;Gagliardo P.;Galanaud D.;Gao G.;Geleijns K.;Ghuysen A.;Giraud B.;Glocker B.;Gomez P. A.;Grossi F.;Gruen R. L.;Gupta D.;Haagsma J. A.;Hadzic E.;Haitsma I.;Hartings J. A.;Helbok R.;Helseth E.;Hertle D.;Hill S.;Hoedemaekers A.;Hoefer S.;Hutchinson P. J.;Haberg A. K.;Jacobs B.;Janciak I.;Janssens K.;Jiang J.;Jones K.;Kalala J. -P.;Kamnitsas K.;Karan M.;Karau J.;Katila A.;Kaukonen M.;Keeling D.;Kerforne T.;Ketharanathan N.;Kettunen J.;Kivisaari R.;Kolias A. G.;Kolumban B.;Kompanje E.;Kondziella D.;Koskinen L. -O.;Kovacs N.;Kalovits F.;Lagares A.;Lanyon L.;Laureys S.;Lauritzen M.;Lecky F.;Ledig C.;Lefering R.;Legrand V.;Lei J.;Levi L.;Lightfoot R.;Lingsma H.;Loeckx D.;Lozano A.;Luddington R.;Luijten-Arts C.;Maas A. I. R.;MacDonald S.;MacFayden C.;Maegele M.;Majdan M.;Major S.;Manara A.;Manhes P.;Manley G.;Martin D.;Martino C.;Maruenda A.;Marechal H.;Mastelova D.;Mattern J.;McMahon C.;Melegh B.;Menovsky T.;Morganti-Kossmann C.;Mulazzi D.;Mutschler M.;Muhlan H.;Negru A.;Nelson D.;Neugebauer E.;Newcombe V.;Noirhomme Q.;Nyiradi J.;Oddo M.;Oldenbeuving A.;Oresic M.;Ortolano F.;Palotie A.;Parizel P. M.;Patruno A.;Payen J. -F.;Perera N.;Perlbarg V.;Persona P.;Peul W.;Pichon N.;Piilgaard H.;Piippo A.;Pili F. S.;Pirinen M.;Ples H.;Pomposo I.;Psota M.;Pullens P.;Puybasset L.;Ragauskas A.;Raj R.;Rambadagalla M.;Rehorcikova V.;Rhodes J.;Richardson S.;Ripatti S.;Rocka S.;Rodier N.;Roe C.;Roise O.;Roks G.;Romegoux P.;Rosand J.;Rosenfeld J.;Rosenlund C.;Rosenthal G.;Rossaint R.;Rossi S.;Rostalski T.;Rueckert D. L.;Ruiz De Arcaute F.;Rusnak M.;Sacchi M.;Sahakian B.;Sahuquillo J.;Sakowitz O.;Sala F.;Sanchez-Pena P.;Sanchez-Porras R.;Sandor J.;Santos E.;Sasse N.;Sasu L.;Savo D.;Schipper I.;Schlosser B.;Schmidt S.;Schneider A.;Schoechl H.;Schoonman G.;Schou R. F.;Schwendenwein E.;Scholl M.;Sir O.;Skandsen T.;Smakman L.;Smeets D.;Smielewski P.;Sorinola A.;Stamatakis E. L.;Stanworth S.;Stegemann K.;Steinbuchel N.;Stevens R.;Stewart W.;Stocchetti N.;Sundstrom N.;Synnot A.;Szabo J.;Soderberg J.;Taccone F. S.;Tamas V.;Tanskanen P.;Tascu A.;Taylor M. S.;Te Ao B.;Tenovuo O.;Teodorani G.;Theadom A.;Thomas M.;Tibboel D.;Tolias C.;Tshibanda J. -F. L.;Tudora C. M.;Vajkoczy P.;Valeinis E.;Van Hecke W.;Van Praag D.;Van Roost D.;Van Vlierberghe E.;Vande Vyvere T.;Vanhaudenhuyse A.;Vargiolu A.;Vega E.;Verheyden J.;Vespa P. M.;Vik A.;Vilcinis R.;Vizzino G.;Vleggeert-Lankamp C.;Volovici V.;Vulekovic P.;Vamos Z.;Wade D.;Wang K. K. W.;Wang L.;Wildschut E.;Williams G.;Willumsen L.;Wilson A.;Wilson L.;Winkler M. K. L.;Ylen P.;Younsi A.;Zaaroor M.;Zhang Z.;Zheng Z.;Zumbo F.;De Lange S.;De Ruiter G. C. W.;Den Boogert H.;Van Dijck J.;Van Essen T. A.;Van Heugten C.;Van Der Jagt M.;Van Der Naalt J.
2016
Abstract
Introduction: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Methods: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. Results: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. Conclusion: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.
Cnossen, M., Polinder, S., Lingsma, H., Maas, A., Menon, D., Steyerberg, E., et al. (2016). Variation in structure and process of care in traumatic brain injury: Provider profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. PLOS ONE, 11(8) [10.1371/journal.pone.0161367].
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/281557
Citazioni
45
42
Social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2021-2023 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 598/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.
