小组教育和同行评议能否改善哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的护理?

I J Smeele, R P Grol, C P van Schayck, W J van den Bosch, H J van den Hoogen, J W Muris
{"title":"小组教育和同行评议能否改善哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的护理?","authors":"I J Smeele,&nbsp;R P Grol,&nbsp;C P van Schayck,&nbsp;W J van den Bosch,&nbsp;H J van den Hoogen,&nbsp;J W Muris","doi":"10.1136/qshc.8.2.92","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To study the effectiveness of an intensive small group education and peer review programme aimed at implementing national guidelines on asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on care provision by general practitioners (GPs) and on patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomised experimental study with pre-measurement and post-measurement (after one year) in an experimental group and a control group in Dutch general practice.</p><p><strong>Subjects and intervention: </strong>Two groups of GPs were formed and randomised. The education and peer review group (17 GPs with 210 patients) had an intervention consisting of an interactive group education and peer review programme (four sessions each lasting two hours). The control group consisted of 17 GPs with 223 patients (no intervention).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Knowledge, skills, opinion about asthma and COPD care, presence of equipment in practice; actual performance about peakflow measurement, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment; asthma symptoms (Dutch Medical Research Council), smoking habits, exacerbation ratio, and disease specific quality of life (QOL-RIQ). Data were collected by a written questionnaire for GPs, by self recording of consultations by GPs, and by a written self administered questionnaire for adult patients with asthma/COPD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 34 GP questionnaires, 433 patient questionnaires, and recordings from 934 consultations/visits and 350 repeat prescriptions were available. Compared with the control group there were only significant changes for self estimated skills (+16%, 95% confidence interval 4% to 26%) and presence of peakflow meters in practice (+18%, p < 0.05). No significant changes were found for provided care and patient outcomes compared with the control group. In the subgroup of more severe patients, the group of older patients, and in the group of patients not using anti-inflammatory medication at baseline, no significant changes compared with the control group were seen in patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Except for two aspects, intensive small group education and peer review in asthma and COPD care do not seem to be effective in changing relevant aspects of the provided care by GPs in accordance with guidelines, nor in changing patients' health status.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"8 2","pages":"92-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.2.92","citationCount":"69","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can small group education and peer review improve care for patients with asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?\",\"authors\":\"I J Smeele,&nbsp;R P Grol,&nbsp;C P van Schayck,&nbsp;W J van den Bosch,&nbsp;H J van den Hoogen,&nbsp;J W Muris\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/qshc.8.2.92\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To study the effectiveness of an intensive small group education and peer review programme aimed at implementing national guidelines on asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on care provision by general practitioners (GPs) and on patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomised experimental study with pre-measurement and post-measurement (after one year) in an experimental group and a control group in Dutch general practice.</p><p><strong>Subjects and intervention: </strong>Two groups of GPs were formed and randomised. The education and peer review group (17 GPs with 210 patients) had an intervention consisting of an interactive group education and peer review programme (four sessions each lasting two hours). The control group consisted of 17 GPs with 223 patients (no intervention).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Knowledge, skills, opinion about asthma and COPD care, presence of equipment in practice; actual performance about peakflow measurement, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment; asthma symptoms (Dutch Medical Research Council), smoking habits, exacerbation ratio, and disease specific quality of life (QOL-RIQ). Data were collected by a written questionnaire for GPs, by self recording of consultations by GPs, and by a written self administered questionnaire for adult patients with asthma/COPD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 34 GP questionnaires, 433 patient questionnaires, and recordings from 934 consultations/visits and 350 repeat prescriptions were available. Compared with the control group there were only significant changes for self estimated skills (+16%, 95% confidence interval 4% to 26%) and presence of peakflow meters in practice (+18%, p < 0.05). No significant changes were found for provided care and patient outcomes compared with the control group. In the subgroup of more severe patients, the group of older patients, and in the group of patients not using anti-inflammatory medication at baseline, no significant changes compared with the control group were seen in patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Except for two aspects, intensive small group education and peer review in asthma and COPD care do not seem to be effective in changing relevant aspects of the provided care by GPs in accordance with guidelines, nor in changing patients' health status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"92-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.2.92\",\"citationCount\":\"69\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.2.92\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.2.92","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 69

摘要

目的:研究强化小组教育和同行评议项目的有效性,该项目旨在实施全科医生(gp)提供的哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)护理和患者预后的国家指南。设计:一项随机实验研究,在荷兰全科实践中,实验组和对照组进行前测量和后测量(一年后)。受试者和干预措施:随机分为两组全科医生。教育和同行评议组(17名全科医生,210名患者)的干预包括互动式小组教育和同行评议计划(4次,每次持续2小时)。对照组由17名全科医生223例患者组成(无干预)。主要结局指标:对哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病护理的知识、技能、意见、实践中设备的存在;峰流量测量、非药物和药物治疗的实际表现;哮喘症状(荷兰医学研究委员会),吸烟习惯,恶化率和疾病特定生活质量(QOL-RIQ)。数据通过全科医生的书面问卷、全科医生的自我咨询记录和成人哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺病患者的书面自我管理问卷收集。结果:收集了34份全科医生问卷、433份患者问卷、934次会诊/就诊记录和350张重复处方记录。与对照组相比,只有自我评估技能(+16%,95%置信区间为4%至26%)和实际使用峰值流量计(+18%,p < 0.05)有显著变化。与对照组相比,提供的护理和患者预后没有明显变化。在较严重的患者亚组、老年患者组和基线时未使用抗炎药物的患者组中,患者的预后与对照组相比没有明显变化。结论:除两个方面外,强化小组教育和同行评议在改变全科医生按照指南提供的护理的相关方面,以及改变患者的健康状况方面似乎都没有效果。
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
Can small group education and peer review improve care for patients with asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

Objective: To study the effectiveness of an intensive small group education and peer review programme aimed at implementing national guidelines on asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on care provision by general practitioners (GPs) and on patient outcomes.

Design: A randomised experimental study with pre-measurement and post-measurement (after one year) in an experimental group and a control group in Dutch general practice.

Subjects and intervention: Two groups of GPs were formed and randomised. The education and peer review group (17 GPs with 210 patients) had an intervention consisting of an interactive group education and peer review programme (four sessions each lasting two hours). The control group consisted of 17 GPs with 223 patients (no intervention).

Main outcome measures: Knowledge, skills, opinion about asthma and COPD care, presence of equipment in practice; actual performance about peakflow measurement, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment; asthma symptoms (Dutch Medical Research Council), smoking habits, exacerbation ratio, and disease specific quality of life (QOL-RIQ). Data were collected by a written questionnaire for GPs, by self recording of consultations by GPs, and by a written self administered questionnaire for adult patients with asthma/COPD.

Results: Data from 34 GP questionnaires, 433 patient questionnaires, and recordings from 934 consultations/visits and 350 repeat prescriptions were available. Compared with the control group there were only significant changes for self estimated skills (+16%, 95% confidence interval 4% to 26%) and presence of peakflow meters in practice (+18%, p < 0.05). No significant changes were found for provided care and patient outcomes compared with the control group. In the subgroup of more severe patients, the group of older patients, and in the group of patients not using anti-inflammatory medication at baseline, no significant changes compared with the control group were seen in patient outcomes.

Conclusion: Except for two aspects, intensive small group education and peer review in asthma and COPD care do not seem to be effective in changing relevant aspects of the provided care by GPs in accordance with guidelines, nor in changing patients' health status.

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
Engaging patients in decisions: a challenge to health care delivery and public health. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Evidence-based patient empowerment. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red.
×
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