Academic Journal
Development of a Core Critical Care Data Dictionary With Common Data Elements to Characterize Critical Illness and Injuries Using a Modified Delphi Method.
| Title: | Development of a Core Critical Care Data Dictionary With Common Data Elements to Characterize Critical Illness and Injuries Using a Modified Delphi Method. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Murphy DJ; Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA., Anderson W; Critical Path Institute, Tuscon, AZ., Heavner SH; Critical Path Institute, Tuscon, AZ., Al-Hakim T; Society of Critical Care Medicine, Mount Prospect, IL., Cruz-Cano R; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN., Laudanski K; Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN., Kamaleswaran R; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Duke University, Durham, NC., Badawi O; National Evaluation System for Health Technology, Arlington, VA., Engel H; Department of Rehabilitative Services, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA., Grunwell J; Department of Pediatrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA., Herasevich V; Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN., Khanna AK; Department of Anesthesiology, Section on Critical Care Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC., Lamb K; Pulmonary Diagnostics & Respiratory Therapy Services, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA., MacLaren R; Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO., Rincon T; School of Nursing, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA., Sanchez-Pinto L; Division of Health and Biomedical Informatics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL., Sikora AN; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO., Stevens RD; Department of Anesthsiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD., Tanner D; Department of Intensive Care and Resuscitation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH., Teeter W; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD., Wong AI; Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC., Wynn JL; Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL., Zhang XT; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD., Zimmerman JJ; Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA., Kumar V; Society of Critical Care Medicine, Mount Prospect, IL., Cobb JP; Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA., Reuter-Rice KE; School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC. |
| Source: | Critical care medicine [Crit Care Med] 2025 May 01; Vol. 53 (5), pp. e1045-e1054. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Feb 21. |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0355501 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1530-0293 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00903493 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Crit Care Med Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: Philadelphia, PA : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Original Publication: New York, Kolen. |
| MeSH Terms: | Critical Illness*/therapy , Critical Care*/statistics & numerical data , Wounds and Injuries*/therapy , Delphi Technique* , Common Data Elements*, Humans ; Consensus ; Female |
| Abstract: | Objectives: To develop the first core Critical Care Data Dictionary (C2D2) with common data elements (CDEs) to characterize critical illness and injuries. Design: Group consensus process using modified Delphi approach. Setting: Electronic surveys and in-person meetings. Subjects: A multidisciplinary workgroup of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the care of the critically ill and injured. Interventions: The Delphi process was divided into domain and CDE portions with each composed of two item generation rounds and one item reduction/refinement rounds. Two in-person meetings augmented this process to facilitate review and consideration of the domains and by panel members. The final set of domains and CDEs was then reviewed by the group to meet the competing criteria of utility and feasibility, resulting in the core dataset. Measurements and Main Results: The 23-member Delphi panel was provided 1833 candidate variables for potential dataset inclusion. The final dataset includes 226 patient-level CDCs in nine domains, which include anthropometrics and demographics (8), chronic comorbid illnesses (18), advanced directives (1), ICU diagnoses (61), diagnostic tests (42), interventions (27), medications (38), objective assessments (26), and hospital course and outcomes (5). Upon final review, 91% of the panel endorsed the CDCs as meeting criteria for a minimum viable data dictionary. Data elements cross the lifespan of neonate through adult patients. Conclusions: The resulting C2D2 provides a foundation to facilitate rapid collection, analyses, and dissemination of information necessary for research, quality improvement, and clinical practice to optimize critical care outcomes. Further work is needed to validate the effectiveness of the dataset in a variety of critical care settings. (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) |
| Competing Interests: | Drs. Murphy’s and Sikora’s institutions received funding from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. Dr. Murphy’s institution received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Cruz-Cano’s institution received funding from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). Dr. Kamaleswaran’s institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Drs. Kamaleswaran, Sikora, Tanner, and Wong received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Badawi received funding from Ceiba Healthcare and CLEW Medical. Dr. Khanna received funding from Medtronic, Edwards Life Sciences, Philips Research North America, GE Healthcare, Retia Medical, Caretaker Medical, BrainX, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Department of Defense, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Rincon received funding from Blue Cirrus Consulting, Baxter Health Consulting, Viven Health, Phillips Health, Hospital Insurance Forum, and Illinois Health and Hospital Association. Drs. Wong, Zimmerman, and Cobb received funding from the SCCM. Dr. Wong received funding from Ataia Medical. Dr. Wynn received funding from Sobi. Dr. Zhang received support for article research from the SCCM. Dr. Zimmerman’s institution received funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Immunexpress. Drs. Zimmerman and Reuter-Rice received funding from Elsevier Publishing. Dr. Cobb received funding from Giblib, Akido Labs, and Bauhealth. Dr. Reuter-Rice’s institution received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; she received funding from Delphi. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest. |
| References: | Halpern NA, Goldman DA, Tan KS, et al.: Trends in critical care beds and use among population groups and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in the United States: 2000-2010. Crit Care Med. 2016; 44:1490–1499. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al.; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ICU End-Of-Life Peer Group: Use of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: An epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med. 2004; 32:638–643. Deutschman CS, Ahrens T, Cairns CB, et al.; Critical Care Societies Collaborative USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research: Multisociety task force for critical care research: Key issues and recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2012; 40:254–260. Heavner SF, Anderson W, Kashyap R, et al.: A path to real-world evidence in critical care using open-source data harmonization tools. Crit Care Explor. 2023; 5:e0893. Dinglas VD, Cherukuri SPS, Needham DM: Core outcomes sets for studies evaluating critical illness and patient recovery. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020; 26:489–499. Leese P, Anand A, Girvin A, et al.: Clinical encounter heterogeneity and methods for resolving in networked EHR data: A study from N3C and RECOVER programs. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023; 30:1125–1136. Kohane IS, Aronow BJ, Avillach P, et al.; Consortium for clinical characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE): What every reader should know about studies using electronic health record data but may be afraid to ask. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23:e22219. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, et al.: The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016; 3:160018. Walkey AJ, Sheldrick RC, Kashyap R, et al.: Guiding principles for the conduct of observational critical care research for coronavirus disease 2019 pandemics and beyond: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry. Crit Care Med. 2020; 48:e1038–e1044. Haendel MA, Chute CG, Bennett TD, et al.; N3C Consortium: The national COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C): Rationale, design, infrastructure, and deployment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021; 28:427–443. O’Reilly-Shah VN, Gentry KR, Van Cleve W, et al.: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights shortcomings in US health care informatics infrastructure: A call to action. Anesth Analg. 2020; 131:340–344. Society of Critical Care Medicine: Five Years of Discovery, the Critical Care Research Network. Available at: https://www.sccm.org/blog/five-years-of-discovery,-the-critical-care-research-network . Accessed January 28, 2025. Holey EA, Feeley JL, Dixon J, et al.: An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7:52. Powell C: The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 41:376–382. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al.: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2:1–88. Shang Z: Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102:e32829. Graefe A, Armstrong JS: Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Int J Forecast. 2011; 27:183–195. Khodyakov D, Grant S, Kroger J, et al.: Disciplinary trends in the use of the Delphi method: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS One. 2023; 18:e0289009. Hashmi ZG, Kaji AH, Nathens AB: Practical guide to surgical data sets: National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). JAMA Surg. 2018; 153:852–853. Walkey AJ, Kumar VK, Harhay MO, et al.: The Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS): An international registry of coronavirus 2019-related critical illness. Crit Care Explor. 2020; 2:e0113. Postelnicu R, Srivastava A, Bhatraju PK, et al.: Severe acute respiratory infection-preparedness: Protocol for a multicenter prospective cohort study of viral respiratory infections. Crit Care Explor. 2022; 4:e0773. Docherty AB, Harrison EM, Green CA, et al.; ISARIC4C investigators: Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with Covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO clinical characterisation protocol: Prospective observational cohort study. BMJ. 2020; 369:m1985. Singh GK, Siahpush M: Widening socioeconomic inequalities in US life expectancy, 1980-2000. Int J Epidemiol. 2006; 35:969–979. Kind AJ, Jencks S, Brock J, et al.: Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161:765–774. Lusk JB, Blass B, Mahoney H, et al.: Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, healthcare access, and 30-day mortality and readmission after sepsis or critical illness: Findings from a nationwide study. Crit Care. 2023; 27:287. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, et al.: APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985; 13:818–829. Salluh JI, Soares M: ICU severity of illness scores: APACHE, SAPS and MPM. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014; 20:557–565. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al.: The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991; 100:1619–1636. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al.: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40:373–383. Newsome AS, Smith SE, Olney WJ, et al.: Multicenter validation of a novel medication-regimen complexity scoring tool. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020; 77:474–478. Azimi H, Johnson L, Loudermilk C, et al.: Medication Regimen Complexity (MRC-ICU) for in-hospital mortality prediction in COVID-19 patients. Hosp Pharm. 2023; 58:564–568. Balamuth F, Scott HF, Weiss SL, et al.; Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) PED Screen and PECARN Registry Study Groups: Validation of the pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and evaluation of third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock definitions in the pediatric emergency department. JAMA Pediatr. 2022; 176:672–678. Matics TJ, Sanchez-Pinto LN: Adaptation and validation of a pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and evaluation of the Sepsis-3 definitions in critically ill children. JAMA Pediatr. 2017; 171:e172352. Baloch SH, Shaikh I, Gowa MA, et al.: Comparison of pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and pediatric risk of mortality III score as mortality prediction in pediatric intensive care unit. Cureus. 2022; 14:e21055. Wynn JL, Mayampurath A, Carey K, et al.: Multicenter validation of the neonatal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for prognosis in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Pediatr. 2021; 236:297–300. Pollack MM, Patel KM, Ruttimann UE: The Pediatric Risk of Mortality III-Acute Physiology Score (PRISM III-APS): A method of assessing physiologic instability for pediatric intensive care unit patients. J Pediatr. 1997; 131:575–581. Kaur A, Kaur G, Dhir SK, et al.: Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score—predictor of mortality and hospital stay in pediatric intensive care unit. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2020; 13:146–150. Shann F, Pearson G, Slater A, et al.: Paediatric Index of Mortality (PIM): A mortality prediction model for children in intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 1997; 23:201–207. Slater A, Shann F, Pearson G; Paediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) Study Group: PIM2: A revised version of the Paediatric Index of Mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2003; 29:278–285. Straney L, Clements A, Parslow RC, et al.; ANZICS Paediatric Study Group and the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network: Paediatric Index of Mortality 3: An updated model for predicting mortality in pediatric intensive care. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013; 14:673–681. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al.: The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the working group on sepsis-related problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996; 22:707–710. Soo A, Zuege DJ, Fick GH, et al.: Describing organ dysfunction in the intensive care unit: A cohort study of 20,000 patients. Crit Care. 2019; 23:186. Kashyap R, Sherani KM, Dutt T, et al.: Current utility of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score: A literature review and future directions. Open Respir Med J. 2021; 15:1–6. Pandharipande PP, Shintani AK, Hagerman HE, et al.: Derivation and validation of Spo 2 /Fio 2 ratio to impute for Pao 2 /Fio 2 ratio in the respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Crit Care Med. 2009; 37:1317–1321. Gonzalez Bernaldo de Quiros F, Otero C, Luna D: Terminology services: Standard terminologies to control health vocabulary. Yearb Med Inform. 2018; 27:227–233. Gliklich RE, Leavy MB, Dreyer NA: Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Fourth Edition. Rockville, MD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2020. Facile R, Muhlbradt EE, Gong M, et al.: Use of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) standards for real-world data: Expert perspectives from a qualitative Delphi survey. JMIR Med Inform. 2022; 10:e30363. Canham S, Ohmann C: A metadata schema for data objects in clinical research. Trials. 2016; 17:557. Duda SN, Kennedy N, Conway D, et al.: HL7 FHIR-based tools and initiatives to support clinical research: A scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022; 29:1642–1653. |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: adult; common data elements; intensive care; neonates; pediatric; standard definitions |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20250221 Date Completed: 20250506 Latest Revision: 20250506 |
| Update Code: | 20260130 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC12047641 |
| DOI: | 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006595 |
| PMID: | 39982128 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
| ISSN: | 1530-0293 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006595 |