Implementing evidence-based clinical and business data standards in Australian private practice clinics is feasible.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition & Dietetics Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-23 DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.12840
Peter W Clark, Lauren T Williams, Marie-Claire O'Shea, Lauren Ball
{"title":"Implementing evidence-based clinical and business data standards in Australian private practice clinics is feasible.","authors":"Peter W Clark, Lauren T Williams, Marie-Claire O'Shea, Lauren Ball","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the feasibility of implementing data standards in Australian primary care dietetics practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods pragmatic study of dietitians working in primary care. Using a four-point Likert scale, participants were surveyed on their baseline use of the 45 business and 33 clinical evidenced-based data standards. The content validity index and kappa statistic for each standard were calculated with a kappa statistic of 0.60-0.74 considered 'Good' and > 0.74 'Excellent'. After 4 weeks of assessment, dietitians were surveyed on the feasibility of implementing each standard and standards in total. Qualitative feedback on enablers and barriers to implementing standards was gathered and triangulated with interviews with select participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-five dietitians from every Australian state and territory completed both surveys (response rate: 100%). At baseline, 24% of business and 79% of clinical standards were rated 'Good' or 'Excellent' for current usage. The feasibility of implementing standards was rated 'Good' or 'Excellent for 86% of the business and 97% of the clinical standards. Software, training and time limitations are enablers and barriers to implementing standards.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Embedding data standards within dietetics practices are feasible and have broad applicability for assessing outcomes of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":"190-202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12840","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To assess the feasibility of implementing data standards in Australian primary care dietetics practices.

Methods: A mixed-methods pragmatic study of dietitians working in primary care. Using a four-point Likert scale, participants were surveyed on their baseline use of the 45 business and 33 clinical evidenced-based data standards. The content validity index and kappa statistic for each standard were calculated with a kappa statistic of 0.60-0.74 considered 'Good' and > 0.74 'Excellent'. After 4 weeks of assessment, dietitians were surveyed on the feasibility of implementing each standard and standards in total. Qualitative feedback on enablers and barriers to implementing standards was gathered and triangulated with interviews with select participants.

Results: Forty-five dietitians from every Australian state and territory completed both surveys (response rate: 100%). At baseline, 24% of business and 79% of clinical standards were rated 'Good' or 'Excellent' for current usage. The feasibility of implementing standards was rated 'Good' or 'Excellent for 86% of the business and 97% of the clinical standards. Software, training and time limitations are enablers and barriers to implementing standards.

Conclusion: Embedding data standards within dietetics practices are feasible and have broad applicability for assessing outcomes of care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在澳大利亚私人诊所实施循证临床和业务数据标准是可行的。
目的:评估在澳大利亚初级保健营养学实践中实施数据标准的可行性:方法:对在基层医疗机构工作的营养师进行混合方法实用性研究。采用李克特四点量表,调查参与者对 45 项业务数据标准和 33 项临床循证数据标准的基线使用情况。计算出每项标准的内容效度指数和卡帕统计量,卡帕统计量在 0.60-0.74 之间的为 "良好",大于 0.74 的为 "优秀"。经过 4 周的评估后,营养师就实施每项标准和所有标准的可行性进行了调查。此外,还收集了有关实施标准的有利因素和障碍的定性反馈,并与部分参与者进行了访谈,对这些反馈进行了三角测量:来自澳大利亚各州和地区的 45 名营养师完成了这两项调查(回复率:100%)。在基线调查中,24% 的业务标准和 79% 的临床标准的当前使用情况被评为 "良好 "或 "优秀"。86% 的业务标准和 97% 的临床标准的实施可行性被评为 "良好 "或 "优秀"。软件、培训和时间限制既是实施标准的有利因素,也是实施标准的障碍:结论:在营养学实践中嵌入数据标准是可行的,并且在评估护理结果方面具有广泛的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Harnessing delegation and technology to identify and manage malnutrition in a digital hospital: An implementation study. Micronutrient intakes in a young antenatal population-10-year Retrospective survey at a Sydney hospital clinic. Perspectives of Australian healthcare professionals towards gamification in practice. Enhancing or impeding? The influence of digital systems on interprofessional practice and person-centred care in nutrition care systems across rehabilitation units. Oral interview in place of traditional objective structured clinical examinations for assessing placement readiness in nutrition and dietetics education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1