AGREE 工具对制定和评估临床方案的实用性:从理论到临床实践

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Healthcare Quality Research Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.04.004
{"title":"AGREE 工具对制定和评估临床方案的实用性:从理论到临床实践","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction and objective</h3><p>Clinical protocols are tools for the delivery of optimal and quality healthcare. However, there are often shortcomings in the quality of their design that invalidate their implementation. The aim of this study is to describe a systematic evaluation of clinical protocols, to analyse their quality in order to enable their implementation.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Descriptive study that included the clinical protocols assessed by the Committee of Reviewers of Clinical Practice Recommendations and Health Technologies of a tertiary hospital during 11<!--> <!-->years of its existence between 2013 and 2023. The AGREE instrument was used to assess the quality of the protocols received, calculating standardised scores by item and domain, and categorising them into: a)<!--> <!-->excellent (90-100%), b)<!--> <!-->good (70-89%), c)<!--> <!-->improvable (50-69%), d)<!--> <!-->very improvable (30-49%), e)<!--> <!-->deficient (10-29%), and f)<!--> <!-->very deficient: 0-9%.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 59 documents received by the Commission, 32 were subsidised for AGREE evaluation. The highest scoring domain was «Scope and objective», with excellent scores for 29 protocols; the remaining domains had scores ranging from 58.5%-100% for «Rigour in elaboration» and 0-100% for «Independence». By items, scores ranged from 85.7-100% for «Target users of the protocol are clearly defined» to 0-100% for the items «Potential costs of implementing recommendations» and «Conflict of interest». Of the 32 protocols, 9 were highly recommended, 22 were recommended with modifications/conditions and one was not recommended.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The AGREE tool makes it possible to systematize both the drafting of clinical protocols by the authors and their evaluation by the Clinical Practice Recommendations and Health Technologies Review Committee. This makes it possible to have applicable and quality protocols in our hospital, which results in an improvement in the quality of healthcare.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37347,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilidad del instrumento AGREE para la elaboración y la evaluación de protocolos clínicos: de la teoría a la práctica clínica\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.04.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction and objective</h3><p>Clinical protocols are tools for the delivery of optimal and quality healthcare. However, there are often shortcomings in the quality of their design that invalidate their implementation. The aim of this study is to describe a systematic evaluation of clinical protocols, to analyse their quality in order to enable their implementation.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Descriptive study that included the clinical protocols assessed by the Committee of Reviewers of Clinical Practice Recommendations and Health Technologies of a tertiary hospital during 11<!--> <!-->years of its existence between 2013 and 2023. The AGREE instrument was used to assess the quality of the protocols received, calculating standardised scores by item and domain, and categorising them into: a)<!--> <!-->excellent (90-100%), b)<!--> <!-->good (70-89%), c)<!--> <!-->improvable (50-69%), d)<!--> <!-->very improvable (30-49%), e)<!--> <!-->deficient (10-29%), and f)<!--> <!-->very deficient: 0-9%.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 59 documents received by the Commission, 32 were subsidised for AGREE evaluation. The highest scoring domain was «Scope and objective», with excellent scores for 29 protocols; the remaining domains had scores ranging from 58.5%-100% for «Rigour in elaboration» and 0-100% for «Independence». By items, scores ranged from 85.7-100% for «Target users of the protocol are clearly defined» to 0-100% for the items «Potential costs of implementing recommendations» and «Conflict of interest». Of the 32 protocols, 9 were highly recommended, 22 were recommended with modifications/conditions and one was not recommended.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The AGREE tool makes it possible to systematize both the drafting of clinical protocols by the authors and their evaluation by the Clinical Practice Recommendations and Health Technologies Review Committee. This makes it possible to have applicable and quality protocols in our hospital, which results in an improvement in the quality of healthcare.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S260364792400037X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S260364792400037X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言和目的 临床协议是提供最佳和优质医疗服务的工具。然而,其设计质量往往存在缺陷,导致其实施无效。本研究旨在描述对临床方案的系统评估,分析其质量,以便使其得以实施。材料和方法描述性研究包括一家三级医院的临床实践建议和卫生技术审查委员会在 2013 年至 2023 年的 11 年间评估的临床方案。研究使用 AGREE 工具对所收到的方案进行质量评估,按项目和领域计算标准化分数,并将其分为:a) 优秀(90%-100%);b) 良好(70%-89%);c) 可改进(50%-69%);d) 非常可改进(30%-49%);e) 不足(10%-29%);f) 非常不足:0%-9%。得分最高的领域是 "范围和目标",29 份协议获得了优秀;其余领域的得分在 58.5%-100% 之间,"阐述的严谨性 "和 "独立性 "分别为 0-100%。就项目而言,"明确界定规程的目标用户 "的得分率为 85.7%-100%,而 "实施建议的潜在成本 "和 "利益冲突 "的得分率为 0%-100%。结论 AGREE 工具使作者起草临床方案和临床实践建议与健康技术审查委员会评估临床方案的工作系统化。这样,我们医院就有可能制定出适用且高质量的方案,从而提高医疗质量。
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
Utilidad del instrumento AGREE para la elaboración y la evaluación de protocolos clínicos: de la teoría a la práctica clínica

Introduction and objective

Clinical protocols are tools for the delivery of optimal and quality healthcare. However, there are often shortcomings in the quality of their design that invalidate their implementation. The aim of this study is to describe a systematic evaluation of clinical protocols, to analyse their quality in order to enable their implementation.

Materials and methods

Descriptive study that included the clinical protocols assessed by the Committee of Reviewers of Clinical Practice Recommendations and Health Technologies of a tertiary hospital during 11 years of its existence between 2013 and 2023. The AGREE instrument was used to assess the quality of the protocols received, calculating standardised scores by item and domain, and categorising them into: a) excellent (90-100%), b) good (70-89%), c) improvable (50-69%), d) very improvable (30-49%), e) deficient (10-29%), and f) very deficient: 0-9%.

Results

Of the 59 documents received by the Commission, 32 were subsidised for AGREE evaluation. The highest scoring domain was «Scope and objective», with excellent scores for 29 protocols; the remaining domains had scores ranging from 58.5%-100% for «Rigour in elaboration» and 0-100% for «Independence». By items, scores ranged from 85.7-100% for «Target users of the protocol are clearly defined» to 0-100% for the items «Potential costs of implementing recommendations» and «Conflict of interest». Of the 32 protocols, 9 were highly recommended, 22 were recommended with modifications/conditions and one was not recommended.

Conclusions

The AGREE tool makes it possible to systematize both the drafting of clinical protocols by the authors and their evaluation by the Clinical Practice Recommendations and Health Technologies Review Committee. This makes it possible to have applicable and quality protocols in our hospital, which results in an improvement in the quality of healthcare.

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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
83
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Revista de Calidad Asistencial (Quality Healthcare) (RCA) is the official Journal of the Spanish Society of Quality Healthcare (Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial) (SECA) and is a tool for the dissemination of knowledge and reflection for the quality management of health services in Primary Care, as well as in Hospitals. It publishes articles associated with any aspect of research in the field of public health and health administration, including health education, epidemiology, medical statistics, health information, health economics, quality management, and health policies. The Journal publishes 6 issues, exclusively in electronic format. The Journal publishes, in Spanish, Original works, Special and Review Articles, as well as other sections. Articles are subjected to a rigorous, double blind, review process (peer review)
期刊最新文献
Letter to the Editor on "Loneliness impact on healthcare utilization in primary care: A retrospective study". [Learning from our mistakes: Notification of pediatric events through SiNASP in Galicia]. Analysis of quality of life of patients with refractive errors in India. A propósito de una encuesta sobre riesgos de la enfermedad de Chagas Utilidad del instrumento AGREE para la elaboración y la evaluación de protocolos clínicos: de la teoría a la práctica clínica
×
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