Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BackgroundIntensive care unit registries, which aim to improve the quality of intensive care unit care through benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives, are active worldwide, with considerable dishomogeneity. We aimed to map core datasets, additional variables, and research activities of these registries.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was disseminated to registry leads between October 2023 and June 2024. The survey was structured into four main topics: registry characteristics and coverage, core dataset features, additional modules, and registry-enabled research.ResultsLeads of 34/42 national registries responded (response rate 81%), covering 3,337 intensive care units, with a larger representation from South America. Systematized nomenclature of medicine, clinical terms, and customized categorical classifications were the main nomenclatures used. All registries except one employed a severity of illness score/risk prediction model. The SOFA score was reported by 88% of registries. Organ support measures were often recorded, including mechanical ventilation (97%), vasopressor administration (86%) and renal replacement therapy (86%). Three out of four intensive care unit registries coded interventions such as intubations, intravenous lines and tracheostomies. Additional datasets differed, with many use cases for nosocomial infection burden, bed availability and staffing resources. Over half of intensive care unit registries had current structured quality improvement initiatives. Registry-enabled observational research was reported in 46% of registries, while interventional studies were reported in only 22%.ConclusionOver three thousand intensive care units in 35 countries participate in an intensive care unit registry. Despite heterogeneity in coding systems, risk models, and additional datasets, we identify several areas of convergence that may inform a future shared core dataset. There is potential for further intensive care unit registry-based research, particularly interventional.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.62675/2965-2774.20260168

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2026-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

38

Addresses

S, e, c, t, i, o, n, , o, f, , A, n, e, s, t, h, e, s, i, o, l, o, g, y, , a, n, d, , I, n, t, e, n, s, i, v, e, , C, a, r, e, , M, e, d, i, c, i, n, e, ,, , D, e, p, a, r, t, m, e, n, t, , o, f, , P, r, e, c, i, s, i, o, n, -, R, e, g, e, n, e, r, a, t, i, v, e, , M, e, d, i, c, i, n, e, , a, n, d, , J, o, n, i, c, , A, r, e, a, ,, , U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, y, , o, f, , B, a, r, i, , ", A, l, d, o, , M, o, r, o, ", , -, , B, a, r, i, ,, , I, t, a, l, y, .

Keywords

Humans, Critical Care, Registries, Cross-Sectional Studies, Intensive Care Units, Quality Improvement, Surveys and Questionnaires