Decision Making in the Democracy-based Medicine Era: The Consensus Conference Process


Increasing survival

Increasing mortality

Albumin in hepatorenal syndrome [9]

Supranormal elevation of systemic oxygen delivery [25]

Daily interruption of sedatives [10]

Diaspirin cross-linked hemoglobin [26]

Mild hypothermia [11]

Growth hormone [27]

Noninvasive ventilation [1219]

Tight glucose control [28]

Prone position [20]

IV salbutamol [29]

Protective ventilation [2123]

Hydroxyethyl starch [30]

Tranexamic acid [24]

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation [31]
 
Glutamine supplementation [32]



They were identified through a democratic process by a total of 555 physicians from 61 countries that chose to participate in the first democracy-based consensus conference on randomized and multicenter evidence to reduce mortality in critically ill patients.

Given these premises and the large amount of information collected and generated through the whole process, the authors had the ethical duty to disseminate consensus results so as to reach the widest audience of peers. In addition to this book, the main article regarding the consensus is published in Critical Care Medicine [33], and further articles will be published to describe other unpublished findings of the consensus.



1.4 A Common Shell for a Flexible Process


The process above described in detail was the same with small difference among all the four consensus conferences [68, 33]. The first three consensus conferences focused on cardiac anesthesia and intensive care (6), on the perioperative period of any surgery (7), and on patients with or at risk for acute kidney injury (8). The perioperative consensus process and results have already been described in details on a Springer book [34].

The four consensus conferences included between 340 and 1,090 participants from 61 to 77 countries. All were based on a systematic review of literature, on two web-based surveys that preceded and followed, respectively, an international meeting. Each time we published a manuscript on the consensus results on an international journal. There were only a small difference related to the systematic review (according to the broadness and complexity of the subject) and some variance in the question posed by the web survey [5]. However, the five-step process for democratic consensus building is now well tested and to our knowledge is the only method employed to democratically share the decision process with a global audience and to allow to reach an agreement among a population of colleagues in a worldwide horizon.


1.5 Conclusions


This consensus conference identified the 15 interventions with the strongest evidence of a positive or negative effect on mortality in the critical care setting. This summary of evidence may serve as a fundamental guide for clinicians worldwide to orientate their clinical practice, as this is the largest and global survey of intensivists’ opinion on ICU treatment reported so far.

This conference is the fourth to be based on the new concept of democracy-based medicine. This process enhances the possibilities of communication and consensus building between pairs, allowing for a global debate of colleagues on the published evidence. The more and more frequent updates in evidence-based medicine will probably benefit from the diffusion of new information technologies and from the methods made available by the new democracy-based medicine. A dedicated web site has recently been created to perform updates of these consensus conferences and create new ones, www.​democracybasedme​dicine.​org.


References



1.

Vincent J-L (2010) We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 38:S534–S538PubMed


2.

Ospina-Tascón GA, Büchele GL, Vincent J-L (2008) Multicenter, randomized, controlled trials evaluating mortality in intensive care: doomed to fail? Crit Care Med 36:1311–1322PubMed


3.

Rotondi AJ, Kvetan V, Carlet J, Sibbald WJ (1997) Consensus conferences in critical care medicine. Methodologies and impact. Crit Care Clin 13:417–439PubMed


4.

Bellomo R (2014) The risk and benefits of the consensus process. In: Landoni G, Ruggeri L, Zangrillo A (eds) Reducing mortality in the perioperative period. Springer, Cham


5.

Greco M et al (2014) Democracy-based consensus in medicine. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. doi:10.​1053/​j.​jvca.​2014.​11.​005

May 9, 2017 | Posted by in CRITICAL CARE | Comments Off on Decision Making in the Democracy-based Medicine Era: The Consensus Conference Process

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access