A comparison of prospective observations and chart audits for measuring quality of care of musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Australasian Emergency Care Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.auec.2022.09.002
Fiona C.A. Coombes , Kirsten Strudwick , Melinda G. Martin-Khan , Trevor G. Russell
{"title":"A comparison of prospective observations and chart audits for measuring quality of care of musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department","authors":"Fiona C.A. Coombes ,&nbsp;Kirsten Strudwick ,&nbsp;Melinda G. Martin-Khan ,&nbsp;Trevor G. Russell","doi":"10.1016/j.auec.2022.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span>Accurate and efficient data collection is crucial for effective evaluation of quality of care. The objective of this study is to compare two methods of data collection used to score quality indicators for musculoskeletal injury management in </span>Emergency departments: prospective observation, and chart </span>audit.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An analysis was undertaken of data collected from 633 patients who presented with a musculoskeletal injury to eight emergency departments in Queensland, Australia in 2016–17. Twenty-two quality indicators were scored using both prospective observation and chart audit data for each occasion of service. Quality indicators were included if they were originally published with both collection methods. Analyses were performed to compare firstly, the quality indicator denominators, and secondly, the quality indicator trigger rates, scored using each collection method. Chi Square statistics were used to identify significant differences.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Prospectively collected data scored quality indicator denominators significantly (p value&lt;0.05) more often than chart audit data for five (22.7 %) of the 22 quality indicators. The remaining 17 quality indicators (77.3 %) showed no statistical differences. When comparing quality indicator trigger rates, 16 (72.7 %) had significantly different results between methods with 12 (54.5 %) scoring higher using prospective data and four (18.2 %) with chart audit data. The remaining six quality indicators (27.3 %) in this comparison showed no significant difference between chart and prospective data.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Quality indicators including aspects of care associated with patient safety, and those relying on clinician written orders or forms were adequately scored using either prospective observation or chart audit data. Whereas quality indicators relying on time-sensitive information, elements of a social history, general physical exams and patient education and advice scored higher using prospective observation data collection.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55979,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Emergency Care","volume":"26 2","pages":"Pages 132-141"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588994X22000719","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Accurate and efficient data collection is crucial for effective evaluation of quality of care. The objective of this study is to compare two methods of data collection used to score quality indicators for musculoskeletal injury management in Emergency departments: prospective observation, and chart audit.

Methods

An analysis was undertaken of data collected from 633 patients who presented with a musculoskeletal injury to eight emergency departments in Queensland, Australia in 2016–17. Twenty-two quality indicators were scored using both prospective observation and chart audit data for each occasion of service. Quality indicators were included if they were originally published with both collection methods. Analyses were performed to compare firstly, the quality indicator denominators, and secondly, the quality indicator trigger rates, scored using each collection method. Chi Square statistics were used to identify significant differences.

Results

Prospectively collected data scored quality indicator denominators significantly (p value<0.05) more often than chart audit data for five (22.7 %) of the 22 quality indicators. The remaining 17 quality indicators (77.3 %) showed no statistical differences. When comparing quality indicator trigger rates, 16 (72.7 %) had significantly different results between methods with 12 (54.5 %) scoring higher using prospective data and four (18.2 %) with chart audit data. The remaining six quality indicators (27.3 %) in this comparison showed no significant difference between chart and prospective data.

Conclusion

Quality indicators including aspects of care associated with patient safety, and those relying on clinician written orders or forms were adequately scored using either prospective observation or chart audit data. Whereas quality indicators relying on time-sensitive information, elements of a social history, general physical exams and patient education and advice scored higher using prospective observation data collection.

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
前瞻性观察和图表审计的比较,以衡量急诊部门肌肉骨骼损伤的护理质量
背景准确有效的数据收集对于有效评估护理质量至关重要。本研究的目的是比较两种用于对急诊科肌肉骨骼损伤管理质量指标进行评分的数据收集方法:前瞻性观察和图表审计。方法对2016-17年澳大利亚昆士兰八个急诊科633名肌肉骨骼损伤患者的数据进行分析。使用前瞻性观察和图表审计数据对每次服务的22项质量指标进行评分。如果最初使用这两种收集方法发布质量指标,则将其包括在内。进行分析,首先比较质量指标分母,其次比较质量指标触发率,使用每种收集方法进行评分。使用卡方统计来确定显著差异。结果前瞻性收集的数据在22个质量指标中有5个(22.7%)的质量指标分母得分显著高于图表审计数据(p值<;0.05)。其余17项质量指标(77.3%)无统计学差异。在比较质量指标触发率时,16种方法(72.7%)的结果存在显著差异,其中12种方法(54.5%)使用前瞻性数据得分较高,4种方法(18.2%)使用图表审计数据得分较高。在这一比较中,其余六项质量指标(27.3%)显示图表和前瞻性数据之间没有显著差异。结论质量指标,包括与患者安全相关的护理方面,以及那些依赖临床医生书面命令或表格的指标,使用前瞻性观察或图表审计数据进行了充分评分。使用前瞻性观察数据收集,依赖于时间敏感信息的质量指标、社会史、一般体检以及患者教育和建议的要素得分更高。
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
Australasian Emergency Care
Australasian Emergency Care Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
82
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Australasian Emergency Care is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to supporting emergency nurses, physicians, paramedics and other professionals in advancing the science and practice of emergency care, wherever it is delivered. As the official journal of the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA), Australasian Emergency Care is a conduit for clinical, applied, and theoretical research and knowledge that advances the science and practice of emergency care in original, innovative and challenging ways. The journal serves as a leading voice for the emergency care community, reflecting its inter-professional diversity, and the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making to achieve quality patient outcomes. It is strongly focussed on advancing the patient experience and quality of care across the emergency care continuum, spanning the pre-hospital, hospital and post-hospital settings within Australasia and beyond.
期刊最新文献
Maintenance of normothermia in the out-of-hospital setting: A pilot comparative crossover study of a foil blanket versus self-warming blanket. First Nations women's experiences of out-of-hospital childbirth: Insights for enhancing paramedic practice - A scoping review. The experiences of trans (binary and non-binary) people accessing emergency department care in Australia: A grounded theory study. Gender bias in text-to-image generative artificial intelligence depiction of Australian paramedics and first responders. The Clinical Frailty Scale offers little utility as part of a prediction model for community-dwelling older fallers at risk of re-presenting to the emergency department.
×
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