Quality of care for acute abdominal pain in children

Y. Zurynski, K. Churruca, G. Arnolda, S. Dalton, H. P. Ting, P. Hibbert, Charlotte J Molloy, L. Wiles, Carl de Wet, J. Braithwaite
{"title":"Quality of care for acute abdominal pain in children","authors":"Y. Zurynski, K. Churruca, G. Arnolda, S. Dalton, H. P. Ting, P. Hibbert, Charlotte J Molloy, L. Wiles, Carl de Wet, J. Braithwaite","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To assess quality of care for children presenting with acute abdominal pain using validated indicators. Design Audit of care quality for acute abdominal pain according to 21 care quality indicators developed and validated in four stages. Setting and participants Medical records of children aged 1–15 years receiving care in 2012–2013 were sampled from 57 general practitioners, 34 emergency departments (ED) and 28 hospitals across three Australian states; 6689 medical records were screened for visits for acute abdominal pain and audited by trained paediatric nurses. Outcome measures Adherence to 21 care quality indicators and three bundles of indicators: bundle A-History; bundle B-Examination; bundle C-Imaging. Results Five hundred and fourteen children had 696 visits for acute abdominal pain and adherence was assessed for 9785 individual indicators. The overall adherence was 69.9% (95% CI 64.8% to 74.6%). Adherence to individual indicators ranged from 21.6% for assessment of dehydration to 91.4% for appropriate ordering of imaging. Adherence was low for bundle A-History (29.4%) and bundle B-Examination (10.2%), and high for bundle C-Imaging (91.4%). Adherence to the 21 indicators overall was significantly lower in general practice (62.7%, 95% CI 57.0% to 68.1%) compared with ED (86.0%, 95% CI 83.4% to 88.4%; p<0.0001) and hospital inpatient settings (87.9%, 95% CI 83.1% to 91.8%; p<0.0001). Conclusions There was considerable variation in care quality for indicator bundles and care settings. Future work should explore how validated care quality indicator assessments can be embedded into clinical workflows to support continuous care quality improvement.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"509 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To assess quality of care for children presenting with acute abdominal pain using validated indicators. Design Audit of care quality for acute abdominal pain according to 21 care quality indicators developed and validated in four stages. Setting and participants Medical records of children aged 1–15 years receiving care in 2012–2013 were sampled from 57 general practitioners, 34 emergency departments (ED) and 28 hospitals across three Australian states; 6689 medical records were screened for visits for acute abdominal pain and audited by trained paediatric nurses. Outcome measures Adherence to 21 care quality indicators and three bundles of indicators: bundle A-History; bundle B-Examination; bundle C-Imaging. Results Five hundred and fourteen children had 696 visits for acute abdominal pain and adherence was assessed for 9785 individual indicators. The overall adherence was 69.9% (95% CI 64.8% to 74.6%). Adherence to individual indicators ranged from 21.6% for assessment of dehydration to 91.4% for appropriate ordering of imaging. Adherence was low for bundle A-History (29.4%) and bundle B-Examination (10.2%), and high for bundle C-Imaging (91.4%). Adherence to the 21 indicators overall was significantly lower in general practice (62.7%, 95% CI 57.0% to 68.1%) compared with ED (86.0%, 95% CI 83.4% to 88.4%; p<0.0001) and hospital inpatient settings (87.9%, 95% CI 83.1% to 91.8%; p<0.0001). Conclusions There was considerable variation in care quality for indicator bundles and care settings. Future work should explore how validated care quality indicator assessments can be embedded into clinical workflows to support continuous care quality improvement.
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
儿童急性腹痛的护理质量
目的使用经验证的指标评估儿童急性腹痛的护理质量。根据分四个阶段制定和验证的21项护理质量指标,对急性腹痛的护理质量进行设计审计。设定和参与者2012-2013年接受护理的1-15岁儿童的医疗记录是从澳大利亚三个州的57名全科医生、34个急诊科(ED)和28家医院抽取的;6689份医疗记录被筛查为急性腹痛就诊,并由受过培训的儿科护士进行审计。结果测量对21项护理质量指标和三组指标的遵守情况:A-History;束B检查;束C-Imaging。结果514名儿童因急性腹痛就诊696次,对9785项个体指标的依从性进行了评估。总体依从性为69.9%(95%CI 64.8%-74.6%)。对个别指标的依从性从评估脱水的21.6%到适当的成像顺序的91.4%不等。A束病史(29.4%)和B束检查(10.2%)的依从性较低,C束成像(91.4%)的依从率较高。全科医生对21项指标的总体依从性显著较低(62.7%,95% CI 57.0%至68.1%)与ED(86.0%、95% CI为83.4%~88.4%;p<0.0001)和医院住院环境(87.9%,95% CI 83.1%~91.8%;p<0.0001)。结论指标束和护理环境的护理质量存在相当大的差异。未来的工作应该探索如何将经过验证的护理质量指标评估嵌入临床工作流程,以支持持续的护理质量改进。
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
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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