The direction of benefit (high number or low number best) should be standardized for all quality measures. I
favor making a small number (zero) be the best possible response
The language describing quality measures should be standardized to avoid ambiguity.
In particular, #2 is ambiguous. Is the quality measure the use of warming devices, the avoidance of
hypothermia or both?
Examples of rewriting the quality measures:
#24: Proportion of patients with peak pain score > 8 in PACU.
#1: Proportion of patients not receiving antibiotics within the SCIP recommended time window.
#!5: Proportion of patients receiving sustained intraoperative mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes >= 10
ml/Kg IBW for 20 or more minutes.
I am very interested in the role that residual NMblockade plays in prolonged intubation or reintubation.
However, from the cases that I have reviewed in our data base the reversal and monitoring appear to have
been done. The sensitivity of the monitor being used and variability in monitoring site could play a significant
role. Also the time between the last NM blocker dose and the reversal dose may have an effect. Not sure what
we will capture with documenting reversal alone.
With regard to the troponin level and creatinine levels I hesitate to correlate a care time interval of 4 to 7 post
operative days directly with anesthesia care. How do you plan to separate the care of the intraoperative
physicain from the post operative care team?