Althabe Fernando, Bergel Eduardo, Cafferata María Luisa, Gibbons Luz, Ciapponi Agustín, Alemán Alicia, Colantonio Lisandro, Palacios Alvaro Rodríguez
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;22 Suppl 1:42-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00912.x.
There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation.
关于医疗保健质量改进的继续教育项目和教育策略,已有许多系统评价。大多数经审查的研究都是一次性评估,而非长期随访的影响评估。关于组织、财务和监管干预措施的系统评价很少,高质量研究也很少。尽管这些干预措施的评估较少,但它们可能与教育策略同样重要或更重要。在低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)开展的研究很少,或者涉及孕产妇和儿童健康(MCH)的研究很少。因此,当将现有研究和评价的结果应用于低收入和中等收入国家时,需要谨慎解读。互动式工作坊、提醒和多方面干预措施可以改善专业实践,它们通常具有中等效果。教育外展访问持续改善了处方行为,但对其他行为的影响各不相同。审核与反馈干预措施对专业实践的影响各不相同,但大多数情况下这些影响较小至中等。大众媒体和患者介导的干预措施可能会改变专业实践。结合多种质量改进策略的多方面干预措施也很有效,但可能并不比单一干预措施更有效。虽然所有这些策略都适用于低收入和中等收入国家的孕产妇和儿童健康,但特别是其结果在农村地区的适用性可能有限。使用这些策略可能会加剧不平等,在规划实施时应予以考虑。在低收入和中等收入国家的背景下,扩大规模和可持续性可能难以实现,需要仔细考虑。财务干预措施的使用尚未得到充分研究;财务激励和抑制措施可能难以有效和高效地使用,尽管需要考虑它们对实践的影响。鉴于通常存在潜在的组织或系统问题,组织干预措施可能很重要。监管干预措施尚未得到充分评估,但有时可能既便宜又有效。确保医疗保健服务质量没有“万灵药”或简单的解决方案。应选择或定制干预措施,以解决未能提供有效服务的根本原因。决策者应针对具体问题选择最合适的干预措施。这需要一个治理结构,明确规定质量改进活动、优先事项设定、干预措施的选择和设计以及评价的责任。