Quality in health care : QHC最新文献

Objectives: (1) To describe the development of minimum review criteria for the general practice management in New Zealand (NZ) of two chronic diseases: stable angina and systolic heart failure, and (2) to compare the NZ angina criteria with a set produced in Manchester to assess the extent to which use of the same approach to criteria development yields similar criteria.

Methods: A modified Delphi approach, based on the RAND consensus panel method, was used to produce minimum criteria for reviewing the recorded management of heart failure and angina in NZ general practice. The criteria for angina were compared with those produced in the UK, including assessment of the extent to which each set describes actions that the other panel agrees are necessary to record.

Results: For each condition we report minimum criteria describing actions rated as (a) necessary to record and (b) inappropriate to take but, if taken, necessary to record. Although strong scientific evidence underpins approximately one quarter and one third, respectively, of the final sets of NZ and UK angina criteria for actions necessary to record, the NZ criteria agree strongly with the UK criteria (33 of 39 criteria, 85%) but there is less UK agreement with the NZ angina criteria (28 of 40 criteria, 70%).

Conclusion: Despite the lack of scientific evidence for up to three quarters of angina care in general practice, the RAND based approach to criteria development was used in NZ to reproduce most of the UK angina criteria for actions rated as necessary to record in general practice. It is important to make explicit whether ratings of necessity and appropriateness apply to the recording of actions or to the actions themselves.

Objective: To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence.

Design: Two stage Delphi technique.

Subjects: A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers.

Main outcome measures: The extent to which judges agreed with a general definition of a prescribing error, and the extent to which they agreed that each of 42 scenarios represented a prescribing error.

Results: Responses were obtained from 30 (88%) of 34 judges in the first Delphi round, and from 26 (87%) of 30 in the second round. The general definition of a prescribing error was accepted. The panel reached consensus that 24 of the 42 scenarios should be included as prescribing errors and that five should be excluded. In general, transcription errors, failure to communicate essential information, and the use of drugs or doses inappropriate for the individual patient were considered prescribing errors; deviations from policies or guidelines were not.

Conclusions: Health care professionals are in broad agreement about the types of events that should be included and excluded as prescribing errors. A general definition of a prescribing error has been developed, together with more detailed guidance regarding the types of events that should be included. This definition allows the comparison of prescribing error rates among different prescribing systems and different hospitals, and is suitable for use in both research and clinical governance initiatives.

Standards of treatment and care should be acceptable to healthcare consumers as well as to healthcare professionals. A simple categorisation of standards according to their acceptability to consumers is outlined. Professional/consumer groups which review and set standards are discussed, with emphasis on the principles of partnership. Working together towards consensus can be difficult but is now an important way forward.

Objectives: Evaluation of the effect of a quality improvement programme on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording and risk factor levels in a controlled study at two primary health care centres serving 26,000 inhabitants in Northern Helsinki.

Methods: From a random sample of patient records from 1995 (n=1,066), 1996 (n=1,042), and 1997 (n=1,040) the frequency of CVD risk factor recording was measured and the changes in mean levels of total cholesterol, blood glucose, blood pressure, and body weight were monitored during the follow up period. The intervention programme (1995-1996) consisted of lectures and meetings of multiprofessional teams, development of local guidelines, and introduction of a structured risk factor recording sheet as part of the patient records.

Results: After the quality improvement period all risk factors were better recorded at the intervention station than at the control station (p<0.001). More high risk CVD patients were detected from the general population at the intervention station. The mean values of most measured risk factors changed during the intervention. During the follow up period differences were observed between the two health stations in the time trends for body weight, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol, and glucose levels. Risk factor levels of high risk patients receiving CVD treatment decreased during the intervention.

Conclusions: A simple quality improvement programme improved the practice of recording risk factors for CVD which resulted in earlier detection of patients with a high risk of developing the disease.