使卫生保健更安全II:对患者安全做法证据的最新批判性分析。

P G Shekelle, R M Wachter, P J Pronovost, K Schoelles, K M McDonald, S M Dy, K Shojania, J Reston, Z Berger, B Johnsen, J W Larkin, S Lucas, K Martinez, A Motala, S J Newberry, M Noble, E Pfoh, S R Ranji, S Rennke, E Schmidt, R Shanman, N Sullivan, F Sun, K Tipton, J R Treadwell, A Tsou, M E Vaiana, S J Weaver, R Wilson, B D Winters
{"title":"使卫生保健更安全II:对患者安全做法证据的最新批判性分析。","authors":"P G Shekelle,&nbsp;R M Wachter,&nbsp;P J Pronovost,&nbsp;K Schoelles,&nbsp;K M McDonald,&nbsp;S M Dy,&nbsp;K Shojania,&nbsp;J Reston,&nbsp;Z Berger,&nbsp;B Johnsen,&nbsp;J W Larkin,&nbsp;S Lucas,&nbsp;K Martinez,&nbsp;A Motala,&nbsp;S J Newberry,&nbsp;M Noble,&nbsp;E Pfoh,&nbsp;S R Ranji,&nbsp;S Rennke,&nbsp;E Schmidt,&nbsp;R Shanman,&nbsp;N Sullivan,&nbsp;F Sun,&nbsp;K Tipton,&nbsp;J R Treadwell,&nbsp;A Tsou,&nbsp;M E Vaiana,&nbsp;S J Weaver,&nbsp;R Wilson,&nbsp;B D Winters","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review important patient safety practices for evidence of effectiveness, implementation, and adoption.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Searches of multiple computerized databases, gray literature, and the judgments of a 20-member panel of patient safety stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>The judgments of the stakeholders were used to prioritize patient safety practices for review, and to select which practices received in-depth reviews and which received brief reviews. In-depth reviews consisted of a formal literature search, usually of multiple databases, and included gray literature, where applicable. In-depth reviews assessed practices on the following domains: • How important is the problem? • What is the patient safety practice? • Why should this practice work? • What are the beneficial effects of the practice? • What are the harms of the practice? • How has the practice been implemented, and in what contexts? • Are there any data about costs? • Are there data about the effect of context on effectiveness? We assessed individual studies for risk of bias using tools appropriate to specific study designs. We assessed the strength of evidence of effectiveness using a system developed for this project. Brief reviews had focused literature searches for focused questions. All practices were then summarized on the following domains: scope of the problem, strength of evidence for effectiveness, evidence on potential for harmful unintended consequences, estimate of costs, how much is known about implementation and how difficult the practice is to implement. Stakeholder judgment was then used to identify practices that were \"strongly encouraged\" for adoption, and those practices that were \"encouraged\" for adoption.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From an initial list of over 100 patient safety practices, the stakeholders identified 41 practices as a priority for this review: 18 in-depth reviews and 23 brief reviews. Of these, 20 practices had their strength of evidence of effectiveness rated as at least \"moderate,\" and 25 practices had at least \"moderate\" evidence of how to implement them. Ten practices were classified by the stakeholders as having sufficient evidence of effectiveness and implementation and should be \"strongly encouraged\" for adoption, and an additional 12 practices were classified as those that should be \"encouraged\" for adoption.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence supporting the effectiveness of many patient safety practices has improved substantially over the past decade. Evidence about implementation and context has also improved, but continues to lag behind evidence of effectiveness. Twenty-two patient safety practices are sufficiently well understood, and health care providers can consider adopting them now.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 211","pages":"1-945"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making health care safer II: an updated critical analysis of the evidence for patient safety practices.\",\"authors\":\"P G Shekelle,&nbsp;R M Wachter,&nbsp;P J Pronovost,&nbsp;K Schoelles,&nbsp;K M McDonald,&nbsp;S M Dy,&nbsp;K Shojania,&nbsp;J Reston,&nbsp;Z Berger,&nbsp;B Johnsen,&nbsp;J W Larkin,&nbsp;S Lucas,&nbsp;K Martinez,&nbsp;A Motala,&nbsp;S J Newberry,&nbsp;M Noble,&nbsp;E Pfoh,&nbsp;S R Ranji,&nbsp;S Rennke,&nbsp;E Schmidt,&nbsp;R Shanman,&nbsp;N Sullivan,&nbsp;F Sun,&nbsp;K Tipton,&nbsp;J R Treadwell,&nbsp;A Tsou,&nbsp;M E Vaiana,&nbsp;S J Weaver,&nbsp;R Wilson,&nbsp;B D Winters\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review important patient safety practices for evidence of effectiveness, implementation, and adoption.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Searches of multiple computerized databases, gray literature, and the judgments of a 20-member panel of patient safety stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>The judgments of the stakeholders were used to prioritize patient safety practices for review, and to select which practices received in-depth reviews and which received brief reviews. In-depth reviews consisted of a formal literature search, usually of multiple databases, and included gray literature, where applicable. In-depth reviews assessed practices on the following domains: • How important is the problem? • What is the patient safety practice? • Why should this practice work? • What are the beneficial effects of the practice? • What are the harms of the practice? • How has the practice been implemented, and in what contexts? • Are there any data about costs? • Are there data about the effect of context on effectiveness? We assessed individual studies for risk of bias using tools appropriate to specific study designs. We assessed the strength of evidence of effectiveness using a system developed for this project. Brief reviews had focused literature searches for focused questions. All practices were then summarized on the following domains: scope of the problem, strength of evidence for effectiveness, evidence on potential for harmful unintended consequences, estimate of costs, how much is known about implementation and how difficult the practice is to implement. Stakeholder judgment was then used to identify practices that were \\\"strongly encouraged\\\" for adoption, and those practices that were \\\"encouraged\\\" for adoption.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From an initial list of over 100 patient safety practices, the stakeholders identified 41 practices as a priority for this review: 18 in-depth reviews and 23 brief reviews. Of these, 20 practices had their strength of evidence of effectiveness rated as at least \\\"moderate,\\\" and 25 practices had at least \\\"moderate\\\" evidence of how to implement them. Ten practices were classified by the stakeholders as having sufficient evidence of effectiveness and implementation and should be \\\"strongly encouraged\\\" for adoption, and an additional 12 practices were classified as those that should be \\\"encouraged\\\" for adoption.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence supporting the effectiveness of many patient safety practices has improved substantially over the past decade. Evidence about implementation and context has also improved, but continues to lag behind evidence of effectiveness. Twenty-two patient safety practices are sufficiently well understood, and health care providers can consider adopting them now.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 211\",\"pages\":\"1-945\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781147/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

目的:回顾重要的患者安全实践的有效性、实施和采用的证据。数据来源:检索多个计算机数据库,灰色文献,以及由患者安全利益相关者组成的20人小组的判断。审查方法:利用利益相关者的判断来优先审查患者安全实践,并选择哪些实践接受深入审查,哪些接受简短审查。深度综述包括正式的文献检索,通常包括多个数据库,并在适用的情况下包括灰色文献。深入的审查评估了以下领域的实践:•问题有多重要?•什么是患者安全实践?•为什么这种做法应该有效?•练习的有益效果是什么?•这种做法的危害是什么?•实践是如何实施的,在什么情况下实施的?•有关于成本的数据吗?•是否有关于情境对有效性影响的数据?我们使用适合于特定研究设计的工具评估个别研究的偏倚风险。我们使用为该项目开发的系统评估了有效性证据的强度。简要综述针对重点问题进行了重点文献搜索。然后将所有实践总结在以下领域:问题的范围、有效性证据的强度、潜在有害的意外后果的证据、成本估计、对实施的了解程度以及实施实践的困难程度。涉众判断随后被用来确定“强烈鼓励”采用的实践,以及那些“鼓励”采用的实践。结果:从100多个患者安全实践的初始列表中,利益相关者确定了41个实践作为本次审查的优先事项:18个深入审查和23个简要审查。在这些实践中,20个实践的有效性证据的强度至少被评为“中等”,25个实践至少有如何实现它们的“中等”证据。10个实践被涉众分类为有足够的有效性和实现的证据,并且应该“强烈鼓励”采用,另外12个实践被分类为应该“鼓励”采用的。结论:支持许多患者安全实践的有效性的证据在过去十年中有了实质性的改善。关于实施和背景的证据也有所改善,但仍然落后于有效性的证据。22项患者安全措施已得到充分了解,卫生保健提供者现在可以考虑采用这些措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Making health care safer II: an updated critical analysis of the evidence for patient safety practices.

Objectives: To review important patient safety practices for evidence of effectiveness, implementation, and adoption.

Data sources: Searches of multiple computerized databases, gray literature, and the judgments of a 20-member panel of patient safety stakeholders.

Review methods: The judgments of the stakeholders were used to prioritize patient safety practices for review, and to select which practices received in-depth reviews and which received brief reviews. In-depth reviews consisted of a formal literature search, usually of multiple databases, and included gray literature, where applicable. In-depth reviews assessed practices on the following domains: • How important is the problem? • What is the patient safety practice? • Why should this practice work? • What are the beneficial effects of the practice? • What are the harms of the practice? • How has the practice been implemented, and in what contexts? • Are there any data about costs? • Are there data about the effect of context on effectiveness? We assessed individual studies for risk of bias using tools appropriate to specific study designs. We assessed the strength of evidence of effectiveness using a system developed for this project. Brief reviews had focused literature searches for focused questions. All practices were then summarized on the following domains: scope of the problem, strength of evidence for effectiveness, evidence on potential for harmful unintended consequences, estimate of costs, how much is known about implementation and how difficult the practice is to implement. Stakeholder judgment was then used to identify practices that were "strongly encouraged" for adoption, and those practices that were "encouraged" for adoption.

Results: From an initial list of over 100 patient safety practices, the stakeholders identified 41 practices as a priority for this review: 18 in-depth reviews and 23 brief reviews. Of these, 20 practices had their strength of evidence of effectiveness rated as at least "moderate," and 25 practices had at least "moderate" evidence of how to implement them. Ten practices were classified by the stakeholders as having sufficient evidence of effectiveness and implementation and should be "strongly encouraged" for adoption, and an additional 12 practices were classified as those that should be "encouraged" for adoption.

Conclusions: The evidence supporting the effectiveness of many patient safety practices has improved substantially over the past decade. Evidence about implementation and context has also improved, but continues to lag behind evidence of effectiveness. Twenty-two patient safety practices are sufficiently well understood, and health care providers can consider adopting them now.

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
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Data Linkage Strategies to Advance Youth Suicide Prevention. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Systematic Review. Health Information Exchange. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
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