Suppr超能文献

小组教育和同行评审能否改善哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的护理?

Can small group education and peer review improve care for patients with asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

作者信息

Smeele I J, Grol R P, van Schayck C P, van den Bosch W J, van den Hoogen H J, Muris J W

机构信息

Centre for Quality of Care Research, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Qual Health Care. 1999 Jun;8(2):92-8. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.2.92.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

研究一项强化小组教育和同行评审计划的有效性,该计划旨在实施关于哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的国家指南,以了解其对全科医生(GP)的医疗服务提供情况以及患者结局的影响。

设计

在荷兰全科医疗中,对实验组和对照组进行有预测量和后测量(一年后)的随机实验研究。

研究对象与干预措施

将两组全科医生分组并随机分配。教育和同行评审组(17名全科医生及210名患者)接受了一项干预措施,包括互动式小组教育和同行评审计划(共四节课程,每节持续两小时)。对照组由17名全科医生及223名患者组成(未接受干预)。

主要结局指标

关于哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病护理的知识、技能、观点,诊所内设备的配备情况;峰流速测量、非药物和药物治疗的实际操作情况;哮喘症状(荷兰医学研究委员会)、吸烟习惯、加重率以及疾病特异性生活质量(QOL-RIQ)。数据通过针对全科医生的书面问卷、全科医生对诊疗过程的自我记录以及针对成年哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的书面自填问卷收集。

结果

获取了34份全科医生问卷、433份患者问卷的数据,以及934次诊疗/就诊记录和350份重复处方记录。与对照组相比,仅自我评估技能(提高16%,95%置信区间为4%至26%)和诊所内峰流速仪的配备情况(增加18%,p<0.05)有显著变化。与对照组相比,在提供的医疗服务和患者结局方面未发现显著变化。在病情较重患者亚组、老年患者亚组以及基线时未使用抗炎药物的患者亚组中,与对照组相比,患者结局未见显著变化。

结论

除两个方面外,哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病护理中的强化小组教育和同行评审似乎无法有效地按照指南改变全科医生提供的医疗服务的相关方面,也无法改变患者的健康状况。

相似文献

2
Management of asthma and COPD patients: feasibility of the application of guidelines in general practice.
Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Feb;10(1):27-34. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/10.1.27.
9
COPD management by Swedish general practitioners - baseline results of the PRIMAIR study.
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018 Mar;36(1):5-13. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2018.1426148. Epub 2018 Jan 15.

引用本文的文献

2
Educational interventions for health professionals managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 6;5(5):CD012652. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012652.pub2.
3
Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 15;9(9):CD003030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub3.
4
Probation clients' barriers to access and use of opioid use disorder medications.
Health Justice. 2019 May 28;7(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40352-019-0089-6.
5
IMPART systematic review of education for healthcare professionals implementing supported self-management for asthma.
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2018 Nov 6;28(1):42. doi: 10.1038/s41533-018-0108-4.
6
Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 11;9(9):CD012472. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012472.pub2.
8
Guideline for Care of Patients With the Diagnoses of Craniosynostosis: Working Group on Craniosynostosis.
J Craniofac Surg. 2015 Sep;26(6):1735-807. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002016.
9
Clinical practice guidelines in the AANS/CNS Section on Tumors: past, present and future directions.
J Neurooncol. 2014 Sep;119(3):557-68. doi: 10.1007/s11060-014-1497-z. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
10
Educational interventions to improve prescribing competency: a systematic review.
BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 30;3(8):e003291. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003291.

本文引用的文献

1
Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines.
Qual Health Care. 1995 Mar;4(1):55-64. doi: 10.1136/qshc.4.1.55.
2
Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide.
Qual Health Care. 1994 Sep;3(3):147-52. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.3.147.
3
What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments.
BMJ. 1998 Apr 18;316(7139):1236-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236.
5
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jan;47(1):81-7. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1.
7
Single and combined strategies for implementing changes in primary care: a literature review.
Int J Qual Health Care. 1994 Jun;6(2):115-32. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/6.2.115.
8
Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.
Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317-22. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n.
10
Using information from asthma patients: a trial of information feedback in primary care.
BMJ. 1995 Oct 21;311(7012):1065-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7012.1065.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验