Suppr超能文献

临床审核与质量改进——是时候重新思考了吗?

Clinical audit and quality improvement - time for a rethink?

机构信息

NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):42-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01523.x. Epub 2010 Nov 18.

Abstract

RATIONALE AND AIM

Evidence of the benefits of clinical audit to patient care is limited, despite its longevity. Additionally, numerous attitudinal, professional and organizational barriers impede its effectiveness. Yet, audit remains a favoured quality improvement (QI) policy lever. Growing interest in QI techniques suggest it is timely to re-examine audit. Clinical audit advisors assist health care teams, so hold unique cross-cutting perspectives on the strategic and practical application of audit in NHS organizations. We aimed to explore their views and experiences of their role in supporting health care teams in the audit process.

METHOD

Qualitative study using semi-structured and focus group interviews. Participants were purposively sampled (n = 21) across health sectors in two large Scottish NHS Boards. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed.

RESULTS

Work pressure and lack of protected time were cited as audit barriers, but these hide other reasons for non-engagement. Different professions experience varying opportunities to participate. Doctors have more opportunities and may dominate or frustrate the process. Audit is perceived as a time-consuming, additional chore and a managerially driven exercise with no associated professional rewards. Management failure to support and resource changes fuels low motivation and disillusionment. Audit is regarded as a 'political' tool stifled by inter-professional differences and contextual constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings echo previous studies. We found limited evidence that audit as presently defined and used is meeting policy makers' aspirations. The quality and safety improvement focus is shifting towards 'alternative' systems-based QI methods, but research to suggest that these will be any more impactful is also lacking. Additionally, identified professional, educational and organizational barriers still need to be overcome. A debate on how best to overcome the limitations of audit and its place alongside other approaches to QI is necessary.

摘要

背景和目的

尽管临床审核已经存在了很长时间,但它对患者护理的益处的证据仍然有限。此外,许多态度、专业和组织方面的障碍阻碍了它的有效性。然而,审核仍然是一种受欢迎的质量改进(QI)政策手段。对 QI 技术的兴趣日益浓厚,表明现在是重新审视审核的时候了。临床审核顾问协助医疗保健团队,因此对 NHS 组织中审核的战略和实际应用具有独特的跨领域观点。我们旨在探讨他们对在审核过程中支持医疗保健团队的角色的看法和经验。

方法

使用半结构化和焦点小组访谈进行定性研究。参与者是在苏格兰两个大型 NHS 委员会的两个卫生部门中根据目的抽样的(n = 21)。对访谈进行了录音、转录,并进行了主题分析。

结果

工作压力和缺乏受保护的时间被认为是审核的障碍,但这些障碍掩盖了其他不参与的原因。不同的专业有不同的参与机会。医生有更多的机会,可能会主导或挫败这个过程。审核被视为一项耗时、额外的琐事,是一种由管理层驱动的、没有相关专业回报的练习。管理层未能支持和提供资源变化导致动力不足和幻灭。审核被视为一种受到专业差异和背景限制的“政治”工具。

结论

研究结果与先前的研究相呼应。我们发现,目前定义和使用的审核在满足政策制定者的期望方面的证据有限。质量和安全改进的重点正在转向“替代”基于系统的 QI 方法,但也缺乏表明这些方法会更有影响力的研究。此外,仍然需要克服已确定的专业、教育和组织障碍。需要就如何克服审核的局限性以及如何将其与其他 QI 方法结合起来进行辩论。

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