P335 比利时炎症性肠病质量指标集的开发与验证

L Fierens, C Liefferinckx, J Sabino, E de Dycker, V Wambacq, K Vanhaecht, F Rademakers, P Bossuyt, F Baert, D Baert, M Ferrante
{"title":"P335 比利时炎症性肠病质量指标集的开发与验证","authors":"L Fierens, C Liefferinckx, J Sabino, E de Dycker, V Wambacq, K Vanhaecht, F Rademakers, P Bossuyt, F Baert, D Baert, M Ferrante","doi":"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality, categorised as structure (to assess the care setting), process (to assess high-quality care actions by healthcare professionals) or outcome indicators (results of actions undertaken by healthcare professionals). Several quality indicator sets have been developed to standardise, measure and optimise IBD care. Our aim was to develop and validate a set to assess IBD care in Belgium and to select a subset of indicators with room for improvement that can be used to implement and improve care in clinical practice. Methods The importance of 221 quality indicators (49 structure, 135 process and 37 outcome) identified through literature was scored on a 10-point Likert scale in a two-round modified Delphi exercise by IBD experts. In a third round, the experts indicated and ranked their top 10 indicators with most room for improvement benefitting the patient in the Belgian healthcare system to agree on an improvement subset. In parallel, patient perspectives were collected through two linguistic patient focus groups, one in Flemish (6 participants) and one in French (4 participants). A final consensus meeting was organised to discuss 1) the patient perspectives gained through the focus groups, 2) the results of two Delphi scoring rounds and 3) the results of the additional ranking round. Indicators scoring ≥7 by ≥80% of the participants during the second scoring round, or based on agreement during the consensus meeting, were included in the final set. Results Thirty-two experts (11 IBD nurses and 21 clinicians including 2 paediatricians) participated in all three voting rounds, of which 19 also participated in the consensus meeting (6 IBD nurses and 13 IBD clinicians including 2 IBD paediatricians). In total, 199 quality indicators were agreed upon to assess IBD care in Belgium (41 structure, 123 process and 35 outcome). Eighteen (3 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome; Table) were retained in the improvement subset, related to patient characteristics, endoscopy guidelines, infection prevention, steroid use, the IBD care team, services provided in the IBD clinic, the documentation of patient characteristics, the care pathway and the monitoring of disease activity. The decision to include the latter five themes was driven by the importance to patients, which was evident from the patient focus groups. Conclusion An evidence and consensus based set of quality indicators was developed and validated - including an improvement subset - allowing Belgian IBD centres to evaluate quality of provided care, set up quality improvement projects and potentially launch a benchmarking study.","PeriodicalId":15453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"P335 Development and validation of a Belgian set of quality indicators for inflammatory bowel diseases\",\"authors\":\"L Fierens, C Liefferinckx, J Sabino, E de Dycker, V Wambacq, K Vanhaecht, F Rademakers, P Bossuyt, F Baert, D Baert, M Ferrante\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality, categorised as structure (to assess the care setting), process (to assess high-quality care actions by healthcare professionals) or outcome indicators (results of actions undertaken by healthcare professionals). Several quality indicator sets have been developed to standardise, measure and optimise IBD care. Our aim was to develop and validate a set to assess IBD care in Belgium and to select a subset of indicators with room for improvement that can be used to implement and improve care in clinical practice. Methods The importance of 221 quality indicators (49 structure, 135 process and 37 outcome) identified through literature was scored on a 10-point Likert scale in a two-round modified Delphi exercise by IBD experts. In a third round, the experts indicated and ranked their top 10 indicators with most room for improvement benefitting the patient in the Belgian healthcare system to agree on an improvement subset. In parallel, patient perspectives were collected through two linguistic patient focus groups, one in Flemish (6 participants) and one in French (4 participants). A final consensus meeting was organised to discuss 1) the patient perspectives gained through the focus groups, 2) the results of two Delphi scoring rounds and 3) the results of the additional ranking round. Indicators scoring ≥7 by ≥80% of the participants during the second scoring round, or based on agreement during the consensus meeting, were included in the final set. Results Thirty-two experts (11 IBD nurses and 21 clinicians including 2 paediatricians) participated in all three voting rounds, of which 19 also participated in the consensus meeting (6 IBD nurses and 13 IBD clinicians including 2 IBD paediatricians). In total, 199 quality indicators were agreed upon to assess IBD care in Belgium (41 structure, 123 process and 35 outcome). Eighteen (3 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome; Table) were retained in the improvement subset, related to patient characteristics, endoscopy guidelines, infection prevention, steroid use, the IBD care team, services provided in the IBD clinic, the documentation of patient characteristics, the care pathway and the monitoring of disease activity. The decision to include the latter five themes was driven by the importance to patients, which was evident from the patient focus groups. Conclusion An evidence and consensus based set of quality indicators was developed and validated - including an improvement subset - allowing Belgian IBD centres to evaluate quality of provided care, set up quality improvement projects and potentially launch a benchmarking study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 质量指标是衡量医疗质量的标准化循证指标,可分为结构指标(评估医疗环境)、过程指标(评估医疗专业人员的高质量医疗行动)或结果指标(医疗专业人员行动的结果)。目前已开发出多套质量指标,用于规范、衡量和优化 IBD 护理。我们的目的是开发和验证一套用于评估比利时 IBD 护理的指标,并选择出有改进空间的指标子集,用于在临床实践中实施和改进护理。方法 IBD 专家在两轮改良德尔菲法中对通过文献确定的 221 项质量指标(49 项结构指标、135 项过程指标和 37 项结果指标)的重要性进行了 10 分李克特量表评分。在第三轮中,专家们指出了比利时医疗系统中对患者最有改进余地的 10 项指标,并对其进行了排名,从而就改进子集达成一致。与此同时,还通过两个语言病人焦点小组收集病人的观点,一个是佛兰芒语小组(6 人参加),另一个是法语小组(4 人参加)。最后组织了一次共识会议,讨论:1)通过焦点小组获得的患者观点;2)两轮德尔菲评分的结果;3)附加排序的结果。在第二轮评分中,有≥80%的参与者评分≥7分,或在共识会议上达成一致的指标被纳入最终指标集。结果 32 名专家(11 名 IBD 护士和 21 名临床医生,包括 2 名儿科医生)参加了所有三轮投票,其中 19 名专家还参加了共识会议(6 名 IBD 护士和 13 名 IBD 临床医生,包括 2 名 IBD 儿科医生)。会议共商定了 199 项质量指标,用于评估比利时的 IBD 护理(41 项结构指标、123 项过程指标和 35 项结果指标)。改进子集中保留了 18 项指标(3 项结构指标、14 项过程指标和 1 项结果指标;见表),涉及患者特征、内镜检查指导原则、感染预防、类固醇的使用、IBD 护理团队、IBD 诊所提供的服务、患者特征记录、护理路径和疾病活动监测。之所以决定纳入后五个主题,是因为这五个主题对患者的重要性,这一点在患者焦点小组中显而易见。结论 制定并验证了一套以证据和共识为基础的质量指标--包括一个改进子集--使比利时的 IBD 中心能够评估所提供护理的质量,建立质量改进项目,并有可能启动一项基准研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
P335 Development and validation of a Belgian set of quality indicators for inflammatory bowel diseases
Background Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality, categorised as structure (to assess the care setting), process (to assess high-quality care actions by healthcare professionals) or outcome indicators (results of actions undertaken by healthcare professionals). Several quality indicator sets have been developed to standardise, measure and optimise IBD care. Our aim was to develop and validate a set to assess IBD care in Belgium and to select a subset of indicators with room for improvement that can be used to implement and improve care in clinical practice. Methods The importance of 221 quality indicators (49 structure, 135 process and 37 outcome) identified through literature was scored on a 10-point Likert scale in a two-round modified Delphi exercise by IBD experts. In a third round, the experts indicated and ranked their top 10 indicators with most room for improvement benefitting the patient in the Belgian healthcare system to agree on an improvement subset. In parallel, patient perspectives were collected through two linguistic patient focus groups, one in Flemish (6 participants) and one in French (4 participants). A final consensus meeting was organised to discuss 1) the patient perspectives gained through the focus groups, 2) the results of two Delphi scoring rounds and 3) the results of the additional ranking round. Indicators scoring ≥7 by ≥80% of the participants during the second scoring round, or based on agreement during the consensus meeting, were included in the final set. Results Thirty-two experts (11 IBD nurses and 21 clinicians including 2 paediatricians) participated in all three voting rounds, of which 19 also participated in the consensus meeting (6 IBD nurses and 13 IBD clinicians including 2 IBD paediatricians). In total, 199 quality indicators were agreed upon to assess IBD care in Belgium (41 structure, 123 process and 35 outcome). Eighteen (3 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome; Table) were retained in the improvement subset, related to patient characteristics, endoscopy guidelines, infection prevention, steroid use, the IBD care team, services provided in the IBD clinic, the documentation of patient characteristics, the care pathway and the monitoring of disease activity. The decision to include the latter five themes was driven by the importance to patients, which was evident from the patient focus groups. Conclusion An evidence and consensus based set of quality indicators was developed and validated - including an improvement subset - allowing Belgian IBD centres to evaluate quality of provided care, set up quality improvement projects and potentially launch a benchmarking study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: a review of the role of gut microbiota and bacterial biofilms in disease pathogenesis Etrasimod for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of Infection Events From the ELEVATE UC Clinical Program Fibrosis-related transcriptome unveils a distinctive remodeling matrix pattern in penetrating ileal Crohn's disease TOpCLASS Expert Consensus Classification of Perianal Fistulizing Crohn’s Disease: A Real-World Application in a Serial Fistula MRI Cohort Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder symptoms are not as frequent as other eating disorder symptoms when ulcerative colitis is in remission
×
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