Protocols for ischemic stroke in Flemish hospitals: correlation between availability and content versus adherence.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal for Quality in Health Care Pub Date : 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzaf014
Charlotte Lens, Lotte Hermans, Caroline Weltens, Kris Vanhaecht, Robin Lemmens, Ellen Coeckelberghs
{"title":"Protocols for ischemic stroke in Flemish hospitals: correlation between availability and content versus adherence.","authors":"Charlotte Lens, Lotte Hermans, Caroline Weltens, Kris Vanhaecht, Robin Lemmens, Ellen Coeckelberghs","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzaf014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stroke is globally one of the leading causes of mortality and disability. Adhering to evidence-based guidelines and protocols can improve quality of care for ischemic stroke patients. We aimed to compare the availability and content of specific protocols versus adherence to these key intervention in clinical daily practice among Flemish hospitals. We selected five key interventions for managing ischemic stroke patients. These key interventions encompassed the measurement of body temperature, glycaemia monitoring, screening of Swallowing function according to the Fever, Sugar and Swallowing protocol (FeSS protocol) and depression and Activities of Daily Living (ADL), (FeSS+ key-interventions).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic quantitative and qualitative approach was designed to analyse specific protocols from 24 hospitals. A predefined data extraction matrix for the five FeSS+ key interventions was utilized for data collection. Using this matrix, protocols were scored according to completeness of content, regarding the FeSS+ interventions. These scores were used to calculate a total protocol content score, i.e. a total score for the five FeSS+ interventions and an individual score for each key intervention separately, ranging between 0 and 1, per hospital. A score of zero indicates absence of the FeSS+ interventions in the protocols, while a score of one signifies complete coverage of these interventions. In addition, we assessed the correlation between the availability and content of these protocols in relation to the adherence to interventions documented for 30 patients per hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean total protocol content score was 0.40±0.20, ranging from 0.64±0.25 for glycaemia management to 0.1±0.28 for ADL screening. With regard to the individual FeSS+ key interventions, we identified a correlation between protocol characteristics and adherence for glycaemia (rs = 0.42, p = 0.04), depression screening (rs = 0.43, p = 0.04) and ADL screening (rs = 0.44, p = 0.03). Total FeSS+-protocol content also correlated with adherence (r = 0.6140, p = 0.0014).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Protocol characteristics for the FeSS+ key interventions were variable and rather limited, especially for ADL- and depression screening. The identified relationship between the content of protocols and adherence to interventions underscores the value of defining these activities in hospital documentation to improve stroke care.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaf014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stroke is globally one of the leading causes of mortality and disability. Adhering to evidence-based guidelines and protocols can improve quality of care for ischemic stroke patients. We aimed to compare the availability and content of specific protocols versus adherence to these key intervention in clinical daily practice among Flemish hospitals. We selected five key interventions for managing ischemic stroke patients. These key interventions encompassed the measurement of body temperature, glycaemia monitoring, screening of Swallowing function according to the Fever, Sugar and Swallowing protocol (FeSS protocol) and depression and Activities of Daily Living (ADL), (FeSS+ key-interventions).

Methods: A systematic quantitative and qualitative approach was designed to analyse specific protocols from 24 hospitals. A predefined data extraction matrix for the five FeSS+ key interventions was utilized for data collection. Using this matrix, protocols were scored according to completeness of content, regarding the FeSS+ interventions. These scores were used to calculate a total protocol content score, i.e. a total score for the five FeSS+ interventions and an individual score for each key intervention separately, ranging between 0 and 1, per hospital. A score of zero indicates absence of the FeSS+ interventions in the protocols, while a score of one signifies complete coverage of these interventions. In addition, we assessed the correlation between the availability and content of these protocols in relation to the adherence to interventions documented for 30 patients per hospital.

Results: The mean total protocol content score was 0.40±0.20, ranging from 0.64±0.25 for glycaemia management to 0.1±0.28 for ADL screening. With regard to the individual FeSS+ key interventions, we identified a correlation between protocol characteristics and adherence for glycaemia (rs = 0.42, p = 0.04), depression screening (rs = 0.43, p = 0.04) and ADL screening (rs = 0.44, p = 0.03). Total FeSS+-protocol content also correlated with adherence (r = 0.6140, p = 0.0014).

Conclusion: Protocol characteristics for the FeSS+ key interventions were variable and rather limited, especially for ADL- and depression screening. The identified relationship between the content of protocols and adherence to interventions underscores the value of defining these activities in hospital documentation to improve stroke 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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis of routine clinical debriefings and incident reports: insights for patient safety and teamwork enhancement. Prevalence and contributing factors of intravenous medication administration errors in emergency departments: a prospective observational study. Factors associated with harm in reported patient safety incidents and characteristics during health screenings in Korea: a secondary data analysis. Indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare contacts, quality of care, and social disparities across essential healthcare domains. Use and de-implementation of fecal occult blood tests in the acute care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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