Campbell S M, Cantrill J A, Roberts D
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL.
BMJ. 2000 Aug 12;321(7258):425-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.425.
To identify prescribing indicators based on prescribing analysis and cost (PACT) data that have face validity for measuring quality or cost minimisation.
Modified two round Delphi questionnaire requiring quantitative and qualitative answers.
Health authorities in England.
All health authority medical and pharmaceutical advisers in the first round and lead prescribing advisers for each health authority in the second round.
Face validity (median rating of 7-9 on a nine point scale without disagreement) and reliability (rating 8 or 9) of indicators for assessing quality and cost minimisation.
Completed second round questionnaires were received from 79 respondents out of 99. The median rating was 7 for cost minimisation and 6 for quality, and in all except four cases individual respondents rated indicators significantly higher for cost than for quality. Of the 41 indicators tested, only seven were rated valid and reliable for cost minimisation and five for quality.
The 12 indicators rated as valid by leading prescribing advisers had a narrow focus and would allow only a limited examination of prescribing at a general practice, primary care group, or health authority level.
基于处方分析与成本(PACT)数据确定具有表面效度的处方指标,用于衡量质量或成本最小化。
经过修改的两轮德尔菲问卷,要求提供定量和定性答案。
英国的卫生当局。
第一轮为所有卫生当局的医学和药学顾问,第二轮为每个卫生当局的首席处方顾问。
评估质量和成本最小化指标的表面效度(9分制中中位数评分为7 - 9且无分歧)和可靠性(评分为8或9)。
99名受访者中有79人完成了第二轮问卷。成本最小化的中位数评分为7,质量的中位数评分为6,除4例情况外,所有受访者对成本指标的评分显著高于对质量指标的评分。在测试的41项指标中,只有7项在成本最小化方面被评为有效且可靠,5项在质量方面被评为有效且可靠。
被首席处方顾问评为有效的12项指标关注范围狭窄,仅能对全科诊所、初级保健组或卫生当局层面的处方进行有限的审查。