Показать сокращенную информацию

dc.contributor.author Ahmed, H. M. en
dc.contributor.author Atterton, B. P. en
dc.contributor.author Crowe, G. G. en
dc.contributor.author Barratta, J. L. en
dc.contributor.author Johnson, M. en
dc.contributor.author Viscusi, E. en
dc.contributor.author Adhikary, S. en
dc.contributor.author Albrecht, E. en
dc.contributor.author Boretsky, K. en
dc.contributor.author Boublik, J. en
dc.contributor.author Breslin, D. S. en
dc.contributor.author Byrne, K. en
dc.contributor.author Ch’ng, A. en
dc.contributor.author Chuan, A. en
dc.contributor.author Conroy, P. en
dc.contributor.author Daniel, C. en
dc.contributor.author Daszkiewicz, A. en
dc.contributor.author Delbos, A. en
dc.contributor.author Dirzu, D. S. en
dc.contributor.author Dmytriiev, D. en
dc.date.accessioned 2025-03-28T08:20:06Z
dc.date.available 2025-03-28T08:20:06Z
dc.date.issued 2022
dc.identifier.citation Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project / H. M. Ahmed, B. P. Atterton, G. G. Crowe [ et al.] // Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. Published Online. – 2022. – P. 1–8. – Doi: 10.1136/rapm-2021-103136 en
dc.identifier.other Doi: 10.1136/rapm-2021-103136 en
dc.identifier.uri https://dspace.vnmu.edu.ua/123456789/9239 en
dc.description.abstract Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia. en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine en
dc.title Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project en
dc.type Article en


Файлы в этом документе

Данный элемент включен в следующие коллекции

Показать сокращенную информацию