将六个目标纳入创伤护理质量分析

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Systems Pub Date : 2021-07-20 DOI:10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763
Lucy G. Aragon, K. Schieman, Laila Cure
{"title":"将六个目标纳入创伤护理质量分析","authors":"Lucy G. Aragon, K. Schieman, Laila Cure","doi":"10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Institute of Medicine proposed six aims for healthcare quality improvement. Nevertheless, trauma care quality research still focuses on one aim at a time. This research investigates how to incorporate all aims into trauma care quality assessments using data from the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Through a literature review, we identified quantifiable metrics for most aims, except for equity and patient-centeredness. We proposed two approaches to build composite scores accounting for equity via an adjustment procedure based on observed disparities. The single- and multi-aim approaches were compared through correlation, concordance of trauma centre categorisations, and hypothetical incentives. The differences in the approaches stemmed mainly from the weights allocated to the different aims. Results indicated the potential value of multi-aim quality assessment and provided insights about implementation challenges and opportunities. The methods are applicable to the preferred metrics; nevertheless, further research is needed in measuring patient-centeredness.","PeriodicalId":44699,"journal":{"name":"Health Systems","volume":"11 1","pages":"98 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incorporating the six aims for quality in the analysis of trauma care\",\"authors\":\"Lucy G. Aragon, K. Schieman, Laila Cure\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The Institute of Medicine proposed six aims for healthcare quality improvement. Nevertheless, trauma care quality research still focuses on one aim at a time. This research investigates how to incorporate all aims into trauma care quality assessments using data from the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Through a literature review, we identified quantifiable metrics for most aims, except for equity and patient-centeredness. We proposed two approaches to build composite scores accounting for equity via an adjustment procedure based on observed disparities. The single- and multi-aim approaches were compared through correlation, concordance of trauma centre categorisations, and hypothetical incentives. The differences in the approaches stemmed mainly from the weights allocated to the different aims. Results indicated the potential value of multi-aim quality assessment and provided insights about implementation challenges and opportunities. The methods are applicable to the preferred metrics; nevertheless, further research is needed in measuring patient-centeredness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Systems\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"98 - 108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20476965.2021.1906763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医学研究所提出了提高医疗质量的六大目标。然而,创伤护理质量的研究仍然集中在一个时间的一个目标。本研究探讨了如何利用密歇根创伤质量改进计划的数据将所有目标纳入创伤护理质量评估。通过文献回顾,我们确定了大多数目标的可量化指标,除了公平和以患者为中心。我们提出了两种方法,通过基于观察到的差异的调整程序来构建考虑公平的综合得分。通过创伤中心分类的相关性、一致性和假设激励,比较了单目标和多目标方法。方法的差异主要源于分配给不同目标的权重。结果表明了多目标质量评估的潜在价值,并提供了实施挑战和机遇的见解。所述方法适用于优选度量;然而,在以患者为中心的测量方面还需要进一步的研究。
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
Incorporating the six aims for quality in the analysis of trauma care
ABSTRACT The Institute of Medicine proposed six aims for healthcare quality improvement. Nevertheless, trauma care quality research still focuses on one aim at a time. This research investigates how to incorporate all aims into trauma care quality assessments using data from the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Through a literature review, we identified quantifiable metrics for most aims, except for equity and patient-centeredness. We proposed two approaches to build composite scores accounting for equity via an adjustment procedure based on observed disparities. The single- and multi-aim approaches were compared through correlation, concordance of trauma centre categorisations, and hypothetical incentives. The differences in the approaches stemmed mainly from the weights allocated to the different aims. Results indicated the potential value of multi-aim quality assessment and provided insights about implementation challenges and opportunities. The methods are applicable to the preferred metrics; nevertheless, further research is needed in measuring patient-centeredness.
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
Health Systems
Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Towards new frontiers of healthcare systems research using artificial intelligence and generative AI. Assistance systems for patient positioning in radiotherapy practice. Resilience of hospitals in an age of disruptions: a systematic literature review on resources and capabilities. From digital health to learning health systems: four approaches to using data for digital health design. Using participatory systems approaches to improve healthcare delivery.
×
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