医生对临床指标的看法:系统回顾与专题综合。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal for Quality in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzae082
Ana Renker-Darby, Shanthi Ameratunga, Peter Jones, Corina Grey, Matire Harwood, Roshini Peiris-John, Timothy Tenbensel, Sue Wells, Vanessa Selak
{"title":"医生对临床指标的看法:系统回顾与专题综合。","authors":"Ana Renker-Darby, Shanthi Ameratunga, Peter Jones, Corina Grey, Matire Harwood, Roshini Peiris-John, Timothy Tenbensel, Sue Wells, Vanessa Selak","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical indicators are increasingly used to improve the quality of care, particularly with the emergence of 'big data', but physicians' views regarding their utility in practice is unclear. We reviewed the published literature investigating physicians' perspectives, focusing on the following objectives in relation to quality improvement: (1) the role of clinical indicators, (2) what is needed to strengthen them, (3) their key attributes, and (4) the best tool(s) for assessing their quality. A systematic literature search (up to November 2022) was carried out using: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles that met all of the following inclusion criteria were included: reported on physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators and/or tools for assessing the quality of clinical indicators, addressing at least one of the four review objectives; the clinical indicators related to care at least partially delivered by physicians; and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data extracted from eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. A thematic synthesis of data was conducted using NVivo software. Descriptive themes were inductively derived from codes, which were grouped into analytical themes answering each objective. A total of 14 studies were included, with 17 analytical themes identified for objectives 1-3 and no data identified for objective 4. Results showed that indicators can play an important motivating role for physicians to improve the quality of care and show where changes need to be made. For indicators to be effective, physicians should be involved in indicator development, recording relevant data should be straightforward, indicator feedback must be meaningful to physicians, and clinical teams need to be adequately resourced to act on findings. Effective indicators need to focus on the most important areas for quality improvement, be consistent with good medical care, and measure aspects of care within the control of physicians. Studies cautioned against using indicators primarily as punitive measures, and there were concerns that an overreliance on indicators can lead to narrowed perspective of quality of care. This review identifies facilitators and barriers to meaningfully engaging physicians in developing and using clinical indicators to improve the quality of healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369353/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators: systematic review and thematic synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Renker-Darby, Shanthi Ameratunga, Peter Jones, Corina Grey, Matire Harwood, Roshini Peiris-John, Timothy Tenbensel, Sue Wells, Vanessa Selak\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/intqhc/mzae082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical indicators are increasingly used to improve the quality of care, particularly with the emergence of 'big data', but physicians' views regarding their utility in practice is unclear. We reviewed the published literature investigating physicians' perspectives, focusing on the following objectives in relation to quality improvement: (1) the role of clinical indicators, (2) what is needed to strengthen them, (3) their key attributes, and (4) the best tool(s) for assessing their quality. A systematic literature search (up to November 2022) was carried out using: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles that met all of the following inclusion criteria were included: reported on physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators and/or tools for assessing the quality of clinical indicators, addressing at least one of the four review objectives; the clinical indicators related to care at least partially delivered by physicians; and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data extracted from eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. A thematic synthesis of data was conducted using NVivo software. Descriptive themes were inductively derived from codes, which were grouped into analytical themes answering each objective. A total of 14 studies were included, with 17 analytical themes identified for objectives 1-3 and no data identified for objective 4. Results showed that indicators can play an important motivating role for physicians to improve the quality of care and show where changes need to be made. For indicators to be effective, physicians should be involved in indicator development, recording relevant data should be straightforward, indicator feedback must be meaningful to physicians, and clinical teams need to be adequately resourced to act on findings. Effective indicators need to focus on the most important areas for quality improvement, be consistent with good medical care, and measure aspects of care within the control of physicians. Studies cautioned against using indicators primarily as punitive measures, and there were concerns that an overreliance on indicators can lead to narrowed perspective of quality of care. This review identifies facilitators and barriers to meaningfully engaging physicians in developing and using clinical indicators to improve the quality of healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369353/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae082\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床指标越来越多地被用于提高医疗质量,尤其是随着 "大数据 "的出现,但医生对其在实践中的实用性尚不明确。我们回顾了已发表的调查医生观点的文献,重点关注与质量改进相关的以下目标:1)临床指标的作用;2)加强临床指标所需的条件;3)临床指标的关键属性;4)评估临床指标质量的最佳工具:方法:利用 Medline、EMBASE、Scopus、CINAHL、PsycInfo 和 Web of Science 进行了系统的文献检索(截至 2022 年 11 月)。符合以下所有纳入标准的文章均被纳入其中:报道了医生对临床指标的看法和/或评估临床指标质量的工具,至少涉及四个综述目标中的一个;临床指标至少部分与医生提供的护理相关;发表在同行评审期刊上。从符合条件的研究中提取的数据采用批判性评估技能计划(CASP)工具进行评估。使用 NVivo 软件对数据进行了专题综合。从代码中归纳出描述性主题,并将其归纳为回答每个目标的分析性主题:共纳入 14 项研究,为目标 1-3 确定了 17 个分析主题,目标 4 没有确定数据。结果表明,指标可以对医生提高医疗质量起到重要的激励作用,并显示出需要做出改变的地方。要使指标有效,医生应参与指标的制定,相关数据的记录应简单明了,指标反馈必须对医生有意义,临床团队需要有足够的资源根据研究结果采取行动。有效的指标需要关注最重要的质量改进领域,与良好的医疗护理相一致,并在医生的控制范围内衡量医疗护理的各个方面。研究告诫不要将指标作为主要的惩罚性措施,并担心过度依赖指标会导致对医疗质量的狭隘认识:本综述指出了医生有意义地参与制定和使用临床指标以提高医疗质量的促进因素和障碍。
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
Physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators: systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Clinical indicators are increasingly used to improve the quality of care, particularly with the emergence of 'big data', but physicians' views regarding their utility in practice is unclear. We reviewed the published literature investigating physicians' perspectives, focusing on the following objectives in relation to quality improvement: (1) the role of clinical indicators, (2) what is needed to strengthen them, (3) their key attributes, and (4) the best tool(s) for assessing their quality. A systematic literature search (up to November 2022) was carried out using: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles that met all of the following inclusion criteria were included: reported on physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators and/or tools for assessing the quality of clinical indicators, addressing at least one of the four review objectives; the clinical indicators related to care at least partially delivered by physicians; and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data extracted from eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. A thematic synthesis of data was conducted using NVivo software. Descriptive themes were inductively derived from codes, which were grouped into analytical themes answering each objective. A total of 14 studies were included, with 17 analytical themes identified for objectives 1-3 and no data identified for objective 4. Results showed that indicators can play an important motivating role for physicians to improve the quality of care and show where changes need to be made. For indicators to be effective, physicians should be involved in indicator development, recording relevant data should be straightforward, indicator feedback must be meaningful to physicians, and clinical teams need to be adequately resourced to act on findings. Effective indicators need to focus on the most important areas for quality improvement, be consistent with good medical care, and measure aspects of care within the control of physicians. Studies cautioned against using indicators primarily as punitive measures, and there were concerns that an overreliance on indicators can lead to narrowed perspective of quality of care. This review identifies facilitators and barriers to meaningfully engaging physicians in developing and using clinical indicators to improve 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
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Optimizing warfarin and dual oral anticoagulation practices in an academic clinic during a merger amid the COVID-19 pandemic in a marginalized population. International research priorities for integrated care and cross-boundary working: an electronic Delphi study. Intravenous iron staining. Real-world incidence, preventability, and mitigation tools from a long-term quality improvement project. The Future of Global Graduate Training in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety. How can we measure psychological safety in mental healthcare staff? Developing questionnaire items using a nominal groups technique.
×
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