The Residual Lesion Score is a novel tool for assessing the achievement of surgical objectives in congenital heart surgery based on widely available clinical and echocardiographic characteristics. This article describes the methodology used to develop the Residual Lesion Score from the previously developed Technical Performance Score for five common congenital cardiac procedures using the RAND Delphi methodology.

A panel of 11 experts from the field of paediatric and congenital cardiology and cardiac surgery, 2 co-chairs, and a consultant were assembled to review and comment on validity and feasibility of measuring the sub-components of intraoperative and discharge Residual Lesion Score for five congenital cardiac procedures. In the first email round, the panel reviewed and commented on the Residual Lesion Score and provided validity and feasibility scores for sub-components of each of the five procedures. In the second in-person round, email comments and scores were reviewed and the Residual Lesion Score revised. The modified Residual Lesion Score was scored independently by each panellist for validity and feasibility and used to develop the “final” Residual Lesion Score.

The Residual Lesion Score sub-components with a median validity score of ≥7 and median feasibility score of ≥4 that were scored without disagreement and with low absolute deviation from the median were included in the “final” Residual Lesion Score.

Using the RAND Delphi methodology, we were able to develop Residual Lesion Score modules for five important congenital cardiac procedures for the Pediatric Heart Network’s Residual Lesion Score study.

To outline methods for deriving and validating intensive care unit (ICU) antimicrobial utilization (AU) measures from computerized data and to describe programming problems that emerged.

Retrospective evaluation of computerized pharmacy and administrative data.

ICUs from 4 academic medical centers over 36 months.

Investigators separately developed and validated programming code to report AU measures in selected ICUs. Use of antibacterial and antifungal drugs for systemic administration was categorized and expressed as antimicrobial-days (each day that each antimicrobial drug was given to each patient) and patient-days receiving antimicrobials (each day that any antimicrobial drug was given to each patient). Monthly rates were compiled and analyzed centrally, with ICU patient-days as the denominator. Results were validated against data collected from manual review of medical records. Frequent discussion among investigators aided identification and correction of programming problems.

AU data were successfully programmed though a reiterative process of computer code revision. After identifying and resolving major programming errors, comparison of computerized patient-level data with data collected by manual review of medical records revealed discrepancies in antimicrobial-days and patient-days receiving antimicrobials that ranged from less than 1% to 17.7%. The hospital from which numerator data were derived from electronic records of medication administration had the least discrepant results.

Computerized AU measures can be derived feasibly, but threats to validity must be sought out and corrected. The magnitude of discrepancies between computerized AU data and a gold standard based on manual review of medical records varies, with electronic records of medication administration providing maximal accuracy.