首页 > 最新文献

Quality in health care : QHC最新文献

英文 中文
Developing valid cost effectiveness guidelines: a methodological report from the north of England evidence based guideline development project. 制定有效的成本效益指南:英格兰北部循证指南制定项目的方法学报告。
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.127
M Eccles, J Mason, N Freemantle
Over the last decade clinical practice guidelines have become an increasingly familiar part of clinical care. Defined as “systematically developed statements to assist both practitioner and patient decisions in specific circumstances”,1 they are viewed as useful tools for making care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians do and what scientific evidence supports.2 The broad interest in clinical guidelines is international34 and has its origin in issues that most healthcare systems face: rising healthcare costs; variations in service delivery with the presumption that at least some of this variation stems from inappropriate care; and the intrinsic desire of healthcare professionals to offer, and patients to receive, the best care possible. Within the UK there is ongoing interest in the development of guidelines5 and a fast developing clinical effectiveness agenda within which guidelines figure prominently.67During the same 10 year period the methods of developing guidelines have steadily improved, moving from solely consensus methods to methods that take explicit account of relevant evidence. This improvement should make guidelines more valid; guidelines are valid if “when followed, they lead to the improvements in health status and costs predicted by them”.1 In order to maximise validity, three areas of the guideline development process are important8–10: 1. identification and synthesis of the evidence should be done using the methods of systematic review11 to maximise the appropriate identification of evidence;2. the guideline development group should be appropriately multidisciplinary to ensure full discussion of relevant evidence, associated service delivery issues, and the appropriate construction of recommendations;3. the recommendations in the guideline should be clearly and explicitly linked to the evidence supporting them.To date, however, most guidelines have taken a relatively narrow view of evidence, focusing predominantly on effectiveness …
{"title":"Developing valid cost effectiveness guidelines: a methodological report from the north of England evidence based guideline development project.","authors":"M Eccles, J Mason, N Freemantle","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.127","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade clinical practice guidelines have become an increasingly familiar part of clinical care. Defined as “systematically developed statements to assist both practitioner and patient decisions in specific circumstances”,1 they are viewed as useful tools for making care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians do and what scientific evidence supports.2 The broad interest in clinical guidelines is international34 and has its origin in issues that most healthcare systems face: rising healthcare costs; variations in service delivery with the presumption that at least some of this variation stems from inappropriate care; and the intrinsic desire of healthcare professionals to offer, and patients to receive, the best care possible. Within the UK there is ongoing interest in the development of guidelines5 and a fast developing clinical effectiveness agenda within which guidelines figure prominently.67\u0000\u0000During the same 10 year period the methods of developing guidelines have steadily improved, moving from solely consensus methods to methods that take explicit account of relevant evidence. This improvement should make guidelines more valid; guidelines are valid if “when followed, they lead to the improvements in health status and costs predicted by them”.1 In order to maximise validity, three areas of the guideline development process are important8–10: \u0000\u00001. identification and synthesis of the evidence should be done using the methods of systematic review11 to maximise the appropriate identification of evidence;\u0000\u00002. the guideline development group should be appropriately multidisciplinary to ensure full discussion of relevant evidence, associated service delivery issues, and the appropriate construction of recommendations;\u0000\u00003. the recommendations in the guideline should be clearly and explicitly linked to the evidence supporting them.\u0000\u0000To date, however, most guidelines have taken a relatively narrow view of evidence, focusing predominantly on effectiveness …","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"127-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.127","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21895108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29
Improving care for people with diabetes. 改善对糖尿病患者的护理。
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.82
M Pierce
{"title":"Improving care for people with diabetes.","authors":"M Pierce","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.82","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.82","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.82","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21895110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Organisational culture and quality of health care. 组织文化和保健质量。
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.111
H T Davies, S M Nutley, R Mannion
“ A student of management and organisation theory could only be stunned by how little the efforts to improve quality [in health care] have learnt from current thinking in management and from the experience of other industries .” Christian Koeck BMJ 1998; 317: 1267–8. Health policy in much of the developed world is concerned with assessing and improving the quality of health care. The USA, in particular, has identified specific concerns over quality issues12 and a recent report from the Institute of Medicine pointed to the considerable toll of medical errors.3 In the UK a series of scandals has propelled quality issues to centre stage45 and made quality improvement a key policy area.6But how are quality improvements to be wrought in such a complex system as health care? A recent issue of Quality in Health Care was devoted to considerations of organisational change in health care, calling it “the key to quality improvement”.7 In discussing how such change can be managed, the authors of one of the articles asserted that cultural change needs to be wrought alongside structural reorganisation and systems reform to bring about “a culture in which excellence can flourish”.8 A review of policy changes in the UK over the past two decades shows that these appeals for cultural change are not new but have appeared in various guises (box 1). However, talk of “culture” and “culture change” beg some difficult questions about the nature of the underlying substrate to which change programmes are applied. What is “organisational culture” anyway? It is to this issue that this paper is addressed.Many previous policy reforms in the National Health Service (NHS) have invoked the notion of cultural change. In the early 1980s the reforms inspired by Sir Roy Griffiths led …
{"title":"Organisational culture and quality of health care.","authors":"H T Davies, S M Nutley, R Mannion","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.111","url":null,"abstract":"“ A student of management and organisation theory could only be stunned by how little the efforts to improve quality [in health care] have learnt from current thinking in management and from the experience of other industries .” Christian Koeck BMJ 1998; 317: 1267–8. \u0000\u0000Health policy in much of the developed world is concerned with assessing and improving the quality of health care. The USA, in particular, has identified specific concerns over quality issues12 and a recent report from the Institute of Medicine pointed to the considerable toll of medical errors.3 In the UK a series of scandals has propelled quality issues to centre stage45 and made quality improvement a key policy area.6\u0000\u0000But how are quality improvements to be wrought in such a complex system as health care? A recent issue of Quality in Health Care was devoted to considerations of organisational change in health care, calling it “the key to quality improvement”.7 In discussing how such change can be managed, the authors of one of the articles asserted that cultural change needs to be wrought alongside structural reorganisation and systems reform to bring about “a culture in which excellence can flourish”.8 A review of policy changes in the UK over the past two decades shows that these appeals for cultural change are not new but have appeared in various guises (box 1). However, talk of “culture” and “culture change” beg some difficult questions about the nature of the underlying substrate to which change programmes are applied. What is “organisational culture” anyway? It is to this issue that this paper is addressed.Many previous policy reforms in the National Health Service (NHS) have invoked the notion of cultural change. In the early 1980s the reforms inspired by Sir Roy Griffiths led …","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"111-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.111","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21895106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 650
Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators. 初级保健组的临床治理:循证绩效指标的可行性
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.90
A McColl, P Roderick, H Smith, E Wilkinson, M Moore, M Exworthy, J Gabbay

Objectives: To test the feasibility of deriving comparative indicators in all the practices within a primary care group.

Design: A retrospective audit using practice computer systems and random note review.

Setting: A primary care group in southern England.

Subjects: All 18 general practices in a primary care group.

Main outcome measures: Twenty six evidence-based process indicators including aspirin therapy in high risk patients, detection and control of hypertension, smoking cessation advice, treatment of heart failure, raised cholesterol levels in those with established cardiovascular disease, and the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Feasibility was tested by examining whether it was possible to derive these indicators in all the practices; the problems and constraints incurred when collecting data; the variations in indicator values between practices in both their identification of diseases and in the uptake of various interventions; the possible reasons for these variations; and the cost of generating such indicators.

Results: It was possible to derive eight indicators in all practices and in three practices all 26 indicators. The median number of indicators derived was 12 with two practices able to generate eight. There was considerable variation in the use of computers between practices and in the ability and ease of various practice computer systems to generate indicators. Practices varied greatly in the identification of diseases and in the uptake of effective interventions. Variation in identification of ischaemic heart disease could not be explained by a higher prevalence in practices with a more deprived population. The cost of generating these indicators was 5300 Pounds.

Conclusion: Comparative evidence-based indicators, used as part of clinical governance in primary care groups, could have the potential to turn evidence into everyday practice, to improve the quality of patient care, and to have an impact on the population's health. However, to derive such indicators and to be able to make meaningful comparisons primary care groups need greater conformity and compatibility of computer systems, improved computer skills for practice staff, and appropriate funding.

目的:检验在一个初级保健组的所有实践中得出比较指标的可行性。设计:采用模拟计算机系统和随机笔记审核进行回顾性审核。背景:英格兰南部的一个初级保健小组。对象:初级保健组全部18名全科医生。主要结局指标:26项循证过程指标,包括高危患者的阿司匹林治疗、高血压的发现和控制、戒烟建议、心力衰竭的治疗、心血管疾病患者胆固醇水平升高以及房颤的治疗。通过审查是否有可能在所有做法中得出这些指标来检验可行性;收集数据时遇到的问题和限制;不同做法在确定疾病和采取各种干预措施方面的指标值差异;这些变化的可能原因;以及产生这些指标的成本。结果:所有实践均可得出8个指标,3个实践均可得出26个指标。得出的指标中位数为12,其中两种方法可以产生8个。在不同的实践中,计算机的使用情况以及各种实践计算机系统生成指标的能力和容易程度都有很大的差异。在确定疾病和采取有效干预措施方面的做法差别很大。缺血性心脏病的鉴定差异不能用在贫困人群中较高的患病率来解释。生成这些指标的成本为5300英镑。结论:比较循证指标作为初级保健组临床治理的一部分,有可能将证据转化为日常实践,提高患者护理质量,并对人口健康产生影响。然而,为了得出这些指标并能够进行有意义的比较,初级保健团体需要计算机系统的更大一致性和兼容性,提高执业人员的计算机技能,并提供适当的资金。
{"title":"Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators.","authors":"A McColl,&nbsp;P Roderick,&nbsp;H Smith,&nbsp;E Wilkinson,&nbsp;M Moore,&nbsp;M Exworthy,&nbsp;J Gabbay","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.90","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.90","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To test the feasibility of deriving comparative indicators in all the practices within a primary care group.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective audit using practice computer systems and random note review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A primary care group in southern England.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All 18 general practices in a primary care group.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Twenty six evidence-based process indicators including aspirin therapy in high risk patients, detection and control of hypertension, smoking cessation advice, treatment of heart failure, raised cholesterol levels in those with established cardiovascular disease, and the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Feasibility was tested by examining whether it was possible to derive these indicators in all the practices; the problems and constraints incurred when collecting data; the variations in indicator values between practices in both their identification of diseases and in the uptake of various interventions; the possible reasons for these variations; and the cost of generating such indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>It was possible to derive eight indicators in all practices and in three practices all 26 indicators. The median number of indicators derived was 12 with two practices able to generate eight. There was considerable variation in the use of computers between practices and in the ability and ease of various practice computer systems to generate indicators. Practices varied greatly in the identification of diseases and in the uptake of effective interventions. Variation in identification of ischaemic heart disease could not be explained by a higher prevalence in practices with a more deprived population. The cost of generating these indicators was 5300 Pounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparative evidence-based indicators, used as part of clinical governance in primary care groups, could have the potential to turn evidence into everyday practice, to improve the quality of patient care, and to have an impact on the population's health. However, to derive such indicators and to be able to make meaningful comparisons primary care groups need greater conformity and compatibility of computer systems, improved computer skills for practice staff, and appropriate funding.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"90-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.90","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21893404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51
Validation of an outcome scale for use in adult psychiatric practice. 用于成人精神病学实践的结果量表的验证。
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.98
R McClelland, P Trimble, M L Fox, M R Stevenson, B Bell

Objective: To clarify the usefulness, acceptability, sensitivity, and validity of version 4 of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS), a scale developed to meet the requirement for a clinically acceptable outcome scale for routine use in mental illness services.

Design: Patients with a range of mental illnesses were rated on the HoNOS at the beginning and end of an episode by interviews with mental health professionals.

Subjects: 934 patients from eight diagnostic categories were rated by 129 mental health professionals at 17 sites; 250 were also rated on a range of comparison scales.

Outcome measures: Comparison of patients' scores at the beginning and end of an episode using individual item scores, dimensional subscores, and the total score.

Results: HoNOS scores decreased by almost 50% between the beginning and end of episodes. They varied with the severity of the setting and discriminant analysis showed that the HoNOS had a moderate level of discriminatory power. Correlation analysis showed acceptable levels of agreement with independent scales, although the accuracy of ratings of some items at the beginning of an episode was affected by information deficits.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that HoNOS is sensitive to change across time and to differences in illness type and severity, and has a sufficient degree of both construct and criterion related validity to fulfil the requirements of a mental health outcome scale for routine use in clinical settings.

目的:阐明国家健康结局量表(HoNOS)第4版的有用性、可接受性、敏感性和效度,该量表是为了满足临床可接受的精神疾病服务常规使用结果量表的要求而开发的。设计:通过与心理健康专家的访谈,在一集的开始和结束时,对患有一系列精神疾病的患者进行HoNOS评分。研究对象:由来自17个地点的129名心理健康专业人员对8个诊断类别的934名患者进行评估;另外,还对250个国家进行了一系列比较评分。结果测量:比较患者在发作开始和结束时的得分,使用单项得分、维度亚得分和总分。结果:HoNOS评分在发作开始和结束之间下降了近50%。它们随着环境的严重程度而变化,判别分析表明HoNOS具有中等水平的歧视能力。相关性分析显示了与独立量表的可接受的一致程度,尽管在剧集开始时对某些项目的评级的准确性受到信息不足的影响。结论:研究结果表明,HoNOS对时间变化、疾病类型和严重程度的差异敏感,并且具有足够的结构效度和标准相关效度,可以满足临床常规使用的心理健康结局量表的要求。
{"title":"Validation of an outcome scale for use in adult psychiatric practice.","authors":"R McClelland,&nbsp;P Trimble,&nbsp;M L Fox,&nbsp;M R Stevenson,&nbsp;B Bell","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.98","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.98","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To clarify the usefulness, acceptability, sensitivity, and validity of version 4 of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS), a scale developed to meet the requirement for a clinically acceptable outcome scale for routine use in mental illness services.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Patients with a range of mental illnesses were rated on the HoNOS at the beginning and end of an episode by interviews with mental health professionals.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>934 patients from eight diagnostic categories were rated by 129 mental health professionals at 17 sites; 250 were also rated on a range of comparison scales.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Comparison of patients' scores at the beginning and end of an episode using individual item scores, dimensional subscores, and the total score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>HoNOS scores decreased by almost 50% between the beginning and end of episodes. They varied with the severity of the setting and discriminant analysis showed that the HoNOS had a moderate level of discriminatory power. Correlation analysis showed acceptable levels of agreement with independent scales, although the accuracy of ratings of some items at the beginning of an episode was affected by information deficits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings indicate that HoNOS is sensitive to change across time and to differences in illness type and severity, and has a sufficient degree of both construct and criterion related validity to fulfil the requirements of a mental health outcome scale for routine use in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"98-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.98","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21893406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73
Do patients matter? Contribution of patient and care provider characteristics to the adherence of general practitioners and midwives to the Dutch national guidelines on imminent miscarriage. 病人重要吗?病人和护理提供者的特点,以坚持全科医生和助产士荷兰国家指导方针迫在眉睫的流产贡献。
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.106
M Fleuren, M van der Meulen, D Wijkel

Objective: To assess the relative contribution of patient and care provider characteristics to the adherence of general practitioners (GPs) and midwives to two specific recommendations in the Dutch national guidelines on imminent miscarriage. The study focused on performing physical examinations at the first contact and making a follow up appointment after 10 days because these are essential recommendations and there was much variation in adherence between different groups of providers.

Design: Prospective recording by GPs and midwives of care provided for patients with symptoms of imminent miscarriage.

Setting: General practices and midwifery practices in the Netherlands.

Subjects: 73 GPs and 38 midwives who agreed to adhere to the guidelines; 391 patients were recorded during a period of 12 months.

Main measures: Adherence to physical examinations and making a follow up appointment were measured as part of a larger prospective recording study on adherence to the guidelines on imminent miscarriage. Patient and care provider characteristics were obtained from case recordings and interviews, respectively. Multilevel analysis was performed to assess the contribution of several care provider and patient characteristics to adherence to two selected recommendations: the number of recommended physical examinations at the first contact and the number of days before a follow up appointment took place.

Results: In the multilevel model explaining variance in adherence to physical examinations, the care provider's acceptance of the recommendations was the most important factor. Severity of symptoms and referral to an obstetrician were significant factors at the patient level. In the model for follow up appointments the characteristics of the care provider were less important. Referral to an obstetrician and probability diagnosis were significant factors at the patient level.

Conclusions: The study showed that characteristics of both the patient and care provider contribute to the variability in adherence. Furthermore, the contribution of the characteristics differed per recommendation. It is therefore advised that the contribution of both patient and care provider characteristics per recommendation should be carefully examined. If implementation is to be successful, strategies should be developed to address these specific contributions.

目的:评估患者和护理提供者特征对全科医生(全科医生)和助产士对荷兰国家临危流产指南中两项具体建议的依从性的相对贡献。这项研究的重点是在第一次接触时进行身体检查,并在10天后进行随访预约,因为这些都是必要的建议,而且不同的提供者群体在依从性方面存在很大差异。设计:由全科医生和助产士前瞻性记录为有即将流产症状的患者提供的护理。背景:荷兰的一般实践和助产实践。受试者:73名全科医生和38名助产士同意遵守指南;在12个月的时间里记录了391例患者。主要措施:遵守身体检查和随访预约被测量作为一个更大的前瞻性记录研究的一部分,对即将流产的指导方针的遵守。分别从病例记录和访谈中获得患者和护理提供者的特征。进行多水平分析,以评估几个护理提供者和患者特征对依从两项选定建议的贡献:第一次接触时推荐的体检次数和随访预约前的天数。结果:在解释体检依从性差异的多层次模型中,护理提供者对建议的接受程度是最重要的因素。症状的严重程度和产科医生的转诊是患者水平的重要因素。在随访预约模型中,护理提供者的特征不太重要。转诊产科医生和概率诊断是患者水平的重要因素。结论:研究表明,患者和护理提供者的特点都有助于依从性的变化。此外,每个推荐的特征的贡献不同。因此,建议应仔细检查每个推荐的患者和护理提供者特征的贡献。如果要成功地执行,就应该制定战略来处理这些具体的贡献。
{"title":"Do patients matter? Contribution of patient and care provider characteristics to the adherence of general practitioners and midwives to the Dutch national guidelines on imminent miscarriage.","authors":"M Fleuren,&nbsp;M van der Meulen,&nbsp;D Wijkel","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.106","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the relative contribution of patient and care provider characteristics to the adherence of general practitioners (GPs) and midwives to two specific recommendations in the Dutch national guidelines on imminent miscarriage. The study focused on performing physical examinations at the first contact and making a follow up appointment after 10 days because these are essential recommendations and there was much variation in adherence between different groups of providers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective recording by GPs and midwives of care provided for patients with symptoms of imminent miscarriage.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>General practices and midwifery practices in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>73 GPs and 38 midwives who agreed to adhere to the guidelines; 391 patients were recorded during a period of 12 months.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Adherence to physical examinations and making a follow up appointment were measured as part of a larger prospective recording study on adherence to the guidelines on imminent miscarriage. Patient and care provider characteristics were obtained from case recordings and interviews, respectively. Multilevel analysis was performed to assess the contribution of several care provider and patient characteristics to adherence to two selected recommendations: the number of recommended physical examinations at the first contact and the number of days before a follow up appointment took place.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the multilevel model explaining variance in adherence to physical examinations, the care provider's acceptance of the recommendations was the most important factor. Severity of symptoms and referral to an obstetrician were significant factors at the patient level. In the model for follow up appointments the characteristics of the care provider were less important. Referral to an obstetrician and probability diagnosis were significant factors at the patient level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study showed that characteristics of both the patient and care provider contribute to the variability in adherence. Furthermore, the contribution of the characteristics differed per recommendation. It is therefore advised that the contribution of both patient and care provider characteristics per recommendation should be carefully examined. If implementation is to be successful, strategies should be developed to address these specific contributions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"106-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.106","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21895105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Are routine outcome measures feasible in mental health? 常规结果测量在精神卫生中是否可行?
Pub Date : 2000-06-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.84
G Thornicroft, M Slade
Can mental health outcome measures be developed which meet the following three criteria: (1) standardised, (2) acceptable to clinicians, and (3) feasible for ongoing routine use? We shall argue that the answers at present are “yes”, “perhaps”, and “not known”, respectively.Standardised ratings of outcomes of interest to patients and clinicians which go beyond symptom severity have been available for almost two decades. Some are composite global ratings, which include disability,1 while most measure specific domains of patient or carer function such as quality of life, needs, or satisfaction.23 When assessed against an array of psychometric characteristics,45 many of these scales have been shown to be well constructed in terms of their validity, reliability, and sensitivity. There is strong evidence therefore that the first criterion has been satisfied. …
{"title":"Are routine outcome measures feasible in mental health?","authors":"G Thornicroft,&nbsp;M Slade","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.84","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.84","url":null,"abstract":"Can mental health outcome measures be developed which meet the following three criteria: (1) standardised, (2) acceptable to clinicians, and (3) feasible for ongoing routine use? We shall argue that the answers at present are “yes”, “perhaps”, and “not known”, respectively.\u0000\u0000Standardised ratings of outcomes of interest to patients and clinicians which go beyond symptom severity have been available for almost two decades. Some are composite global ratings, which include disability,1 while most measure specific domains of patient or carer function such as quality of life, needs, or satisfaction.23 When assessed against an array of psychometric characteristics,45 many of these scales have been shown to be well constructed in terms of their validity, reliability, and sensitivity. There is strong evidence therefore that the first criterion has been satisfied. …","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.84","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21895112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35
A question sheet to encourage written consultation questions. 一个问题表,鼓励书面咨询问题。
Pub Date : 2000-03-01
C Cunningham, R Newton

Problem: Interviews with parents and children attending a hospital paediatric neurology clinic indicated they had difficulties in asking questions during consultations.

Aim: To set up a process to enable parents and children to get the information they wanted.

Background and setting: Two paediatric neurology clinics in separate hospitals in Greater Manchester, UK with a similar client group run by one consultant.

Design: Various styles of question sheets were evaluated. The one that was chosen asked patients to write down questions and hand these to the doctor at the beginning of the consultation. Question sheets were given to all patients attending one clinic over a 13 week period.

Strategies for change: Use of sheets: number of patients taking or refusing a sheet, with reasons for refusal, were recorded. Doctors noted those who handed questions sheets to them Satisfaction with sheets: patients completed a short feedback form after the consultation Effect on consultations: evaluated through interviews with the doctors.

Effects of change: In total, 66 (41%) of the 162 patients offered the sheet declined: 14 had already prepared questions; eight being seen for the first time felt they did not know what to ask. Seventeen had used the sheet on a previous visit and did not need it again; 19 gave no reason; the rest said they had no questions. Seventy six (47%) patients produced a sheet in the consultation. Of those using the sheet, 64 (84%) liked it and 61 (80%) found it useful. Fifty two (68%) wished to use it at future consultations. The doctors reported that through questions articulated on the sheets many issues, fears, and misunderstandings emerged which otherwise would not have been identified. Concerns about increasing consultation time and clinical disruption did not materialize. In contrast, doctors reported patients to be taking more initiative and control, particularly on subsequent visits. None of these changes was noted in the comparison clinic.

Lessons learnt: An attractive, clear question sheet proved a simple but effective intervention in the consultation. Parents felt empowered to take control. The approach may have wider applicability, but implementation requires staff training and support to ensure its continuing use; this ensures medical staff adjust to a new consultation format, and that clinic nurses see the value of the sheets and continue to provide them.

问题:对在医院儿科神经病学诊所就诊的家长和儿童的采访表明,他们在咨询时难以提问。目的:建立一个过程,使家长和孩子得到他们想要的信息。背景和环境:两个儿科神经病学诊所在不同的医院在大曼彻斯特,英国有一个相似的客户群由一个顾问运行。设计:评估了各种类型的问题表。被选中的一项是要求病人写下问题,并在会诊开始时交给医生。在13周的时间里,所有在一家诊所就诊的患者都被发放了问题单。改变策略:床单的使用:记录接受或拒绝使用床单的患者人数,并记录拒绝的原因。医生记录了那些把问题单交给他们的人对问题单的满意度:患者在咨询后完成了一份简短的反馈表格:咨询效果:通过与医生的访谈来评估。改变的影响:162名患者中,总共有66名(41%)拒绝了这份表格:14名已经准备好了问题;第一次被人看见的小八觉得他们不知道该问什么。17个人在上次访问中用过这张被单,不需要再用了;19 .没有给出理由;其余的人说他们没有问题。76例(47%)患者在会诊时出示了单张。在使用这张纸的人中,64人(84%)喜欢它,61人(80%)认为它有用。52个国家(68%)希望在今后的协商中使用它。医生们报告说,通过表格上明确的问题,出现了许多原本不会被发现的问题、恐惧和误解。对增加咨询时间和临床中断的担忧没有实现。相比之下,医生报告说,病人更主动、更有控制力,尤其是在随后的就诊中。在比较诊所中没有发现这些变化。经验教训:一份吸引人的、清晰的问题单证明是一种简单但有效的咨询干预措施。父母们感到有能力控制局面。这一办法可能具有更广泛的适用性,但执行工作需要对工作人员进行培训和支助,以确保继续使用;这确保了医务人员适应新的咨询格式,诊所护士看到了床单的价值,并继续提供它们。
{"title":"A question sheet to encourage written consultation questions.","authors":"C Cunningham,&nbsp;R Newton","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Problem: </strong>Interviews with parents and children attending a hospital paediatric neurology clinic indicated they had difficulties in asking questions during consultations.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To set up a process to enable parents and children to get the information they wanted.</p><p><strong>Background and setting: </strong>Two paediatric neurology clinics in separate hospitals in Greater Manchester, UK with a similar client group run by one consultant.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Various styles of question sheets were evaluated. The one that was chosen asked patients to write down questions and hand these to the doctor at the beginning of the consultation. Question sheets were given to all patients attending one clinic over a 13 week period.</p><p><strong>Strategies for change: </strong>Use of sheets: number of patients taking or refusing a sheet, with reasons for refusal, were recorded. Doctors noted those who handed questions sheets to them Satisfaction with sheets: patients completed a short feedback form after the consultation Effect on consultations: evaluated through interviews with the doctors.</p><p><strong>Effects of change: </strong>In total, 66 (41%) of the 162 patients offered the sheet declined: 14 had already prepared questions; eight being seen for the first time felt they did not know what to ask. Seventeen had used the sheet on a previous visit and did not need it again; 19 gave no reason; the rest said they had no questions. Seventy six (47%) patients produced a sheet in the consultation. Of those using the sheet, 64 (84%) liked it and 61 (80%) found it useful. Fifty two (68%) wished to use it at future consultations. The doctors reported that through questions articulated on the sheets many issues, fears, and misunderstandings emerged which otherwise would not have been identified. Concerns about increasing consultation time and clinical disruption did not materialize. In contrast, doctors reported patients to be taking more initiative and control, particularly on subsequent visits. None of these changes was noted in the comparison clinic.</p><p><strong>Lessons learnt: </strong>An attractive, clear question sheet proved a simple but effective intervention in the consultation. Parents felt empowered to take control. The approach may have wider applicability, but implementation requires staff training and support to ensure its continuing use; this ensures medical staff adjust to a new consultation format, and that clinic nurses see the value of the sheets and continue to provide them.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 1","pages":"42-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1743498/pdf/v009p00042.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21692549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Public disclosure of performance data: learning from the US experience. 公开披露业绩数据:借鉴美国经验。
Pub Date : 2000-03-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.1.53
M N Marshall, P G Shekelle, S Leatherman, R H Brook
The medical profession has, until recently, largely dictated standards of medical practice. If doctors completed their training and became licensed by the state they were trusted by the general public to provide clinical care with minimal obligation to show that they were achieving acceptable levels of performance.Several factors have caused this situation to change. A societal trend towards greater openness in public affairs has been fuelled by the ready availability of information in many areas of life outside of the health sector. A slow realisation of wide variation in practice standards1, 2 and occasional dramatic public evidence of deficiencies in quality of care3, 4 have led to demands by the public and government for greater openness from healthcare providers. The availability of computerised data and major advances in methods of measuring quality5 have allowed meaningful performance indicators to be developed for public scrutiny. The result has been advocacy for the use of standardised public reports on quality of care as a mechanism for improving quality and reducing costs.6–8Publication of data about performance is not, however, new. In the 1860s Florence Nightingale highlighted the differences in mortality rates of patients in London hospitals,9 and in 1917 an American surgeon complained that fellow surgeons failed to publish their results because of fear that the public might not be impressed with the results.10In most developed countries there is now an increasing expectation that healthcare providers should collect and report information on quality of care, that purchasers should use the information to make decisions on behalf of their population, and that the general public has a right to access that information. Organisations in the US have been publishing performance data, in the form of “report cards” or “provider profiles”, for over …
{"title":"Public disclosure of performance data: learning from the US experience.","authors":"M N Marshall,&nbsp;P G Shekelle,&nbsp;S Leatherman,&nbsp;R H Brook","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.1.53","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.1.53","url":null,"abstract":"The medical profession has, until recently, largely dictated standards of medical practice. If doctors completed their training and became licensed by the state they were trusted by the general public to provide clinical care with minimal obligation to show that they were achieving acceptable levels of performance.\u0000\u0000Several factors have caused this situation to change. A societal trend towards greater openness in public affairs has been fuelled by the ready availability of information in many areas of life outside of the health sector. A slow realisation of wide variation in practice standards1, 2 and occasional dramatic public evidence of deficiencies in quality of care3, 4 have led to demands by the public and government for greater openness from healthcare providers. The availability of computerised data and major advances in methods of measuring quality5 have allowed meaningful performance indicators to be developed for public scrutiny. The result has been advocacy for the use of standardised public reports on quality of care as a mechanism for improving quality and reducing costs.6–8\u0000\u0000Publication of data about performance is not, however, new. In the 1860s Florence Nightingale highlighted the differences in mortality rates of patients in London hospitals,9 and in 1917 an American surgeon complained that fellow surgeons failed to publish their results because of fear that the public might not be impressed with the results.10\u0000\u0000In most developed countries there is now an increasing expectation that healthcare providers should collect and report information on quality of care, that purchasers should use the information to make decisions on behalf of their population, and that the general public has a right to access that information. Organisations in the US have been publishing performance data, in the form of “report cards” or “provider profiles”, for over …","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 1","pages":"53-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.1.53","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21692551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 72
A framework for effective management of change in clinical practice. 一个有效管理临床实践变化的框架。
Pub Date : 2000-03-01 DOI: 10.1136/qhc.9.1.80
M Wilcock, I Mackenzie
{"title":"A framework for effective management of change in clinical practice.","authors":"M Wilcock,&nbsp;I Mackenzie","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.1.80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.1.80","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 1","pages":"80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.1.80","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21691771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
期刊
Quality in health care : QHC
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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