Suppr超能文献

谁负责?评估腰痛初级护理治疗质量面临的挑战。

Who's in charge? Challenges in evaluating quality of primary care treatment for low back pain.

作者信息

Wasiak Radoslaw, Pransky Glenn S, Atlas Steven J

机构信息

Center for Disability Research, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA 01748, USA.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Dec;14(6):961-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00890.x. Epub 2008 Mar 24.

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition with frequent health care visits and work disability. Quality improvement efforts in primary care focused on guidelines adherence, provider selection and education, and feedback on appropriateness of care. Such efforts can only succeed if a health care provider is in charge of care over a substantial period. This study was conducted to provide insights about actual patterns of provider involvement in LBP care and implications for quality evaluation.

METHODS

Established primary care patients with occupational LBP and health care covered by a workers' compensation insurer were selected. Primary care physician (PCP) involvement was examined relative to overall health care utilization. Four methods of classifying PCP involvement were used to assess the association between PCP involvement and health care and work disability outcomes over a 2-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Primary care physician was rarely the sole provider during episodes of occupational LBP. PCP was the initial non-emergency room provider in 55% of cases, and was the most prevalent provider during at least one episode of care in 45% of cases. Different methods of classification led to different conclusions about the association between PCP involvement and work disability or number of health care visits. Multiple providers were involved throughout the clinical course of the small number of cases that accounted for most of the health care visits and work disability; in these cases, the role of PCP in care was difficult to determine.

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative data alone are adequate for provider comparisons only in relatively simple cases. Provider comparisons based on initial treating provider likely overstate the importance of early care, particularly in more complex cases. For LBP, quality improvement models based on PCP-directed interventions or reinforcing guideline adherence may not impact outcomes. A patient-centred model may be necessary to achieve outcome improvements.

摘要

原理与目的

腰痛(LBP)是一种常见病症,患者频繁就医且常导致工作残疾。初级保健中的质量改进工作聚焦于遵循指南、选择并教育医疗服务提供者,以及提供护理适宜性反馈。只有在医疗服务提供者负责一段较长时间的护理时,此类工作才能成功。本研究旨在深入了解医疗服务提供者参与LBP护理的实际模式及其对质量评估的影响。

方法

选取有职业性LBP且由工人补偿保险承保医疗的已确诊初级保健患者。相对于整体医疗利用情况,对初级保健医生(PCP)的参与情况进行检查。采用四种对PCP参与情况进行分类的方法,以评估在为期2年的随访期内PCP参与情况与医疗及工作残疾结局之间的关联。

结果

在职业性LBP发作期间,初级保健医生很少是唯一的医疗服务提供者。PCP在55%的病例中是最初的非急诊室提供者,在45%的病例中是至少一次护理期间最常见的提供者。不同的分类方法得出了关于PCP参与情况与工作残疾或就诊次数之间关联的不同结论。在占大多数就诊和工作残疾情况的少数病例的整个临床过程中,有多个医疗服务提供者参与;在这些病例中,PCP在护理中的作用难以确定。

结论

仅行政数据仅在相对简单的病例中足以进行医疗服务提供者比较。基于最初治疗提供者的医疗服务提供者比较可能高估了早期护理的重要性,尤其是在更复杂的病例中。对于LBP,基于PCP指导干预或强化指南遵循的质量改进模式可能不会影响结局。可能需要以患者为中心的模式来改善结局。

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