• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

衡量新西兰临床治理发展的进展:2010年和2012年资深医生的看法。

Measuring progress with clinical governance development in New Zealand: perceptions of senior doctors in 2010 and 2012.

作者信息

Gauld Robin, Horsburgh Simon

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 4;14:547. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0547-8.

DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0547-8
PMID:25367397
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4223159/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical governance has become a core component of health policy and services management in many countries in recent years. Yet tools for measuring its development are limited. We therefore created the Clinical Governance Development Index (CGDI), aimed to measure implementation of expressed government policy in New Zealand.

METHODS

We developed a survey which was distributed in 2010 and again in 2012 to senior doctors employed in public hospitals. Responses to six survey items were weighted and combined to form the CGDI. Final scores for each of New Zealand's District Health Boards (DHBs) were calculated to compare performances between them as well as over time between the two surveys.

RESULTS

New Zealand's overall performance in developing clinical governance improved between the two studies from 46% in 2010 to 54% in 2012 with marked differences by DHB. Statistically significant shifts in performance were evident on all but one CGDI item.

CONCLUSIONS

The CGDI is a simple yet effective method which probes aspects of organisational commitment to clinical governance, respondent participation in organisational design, quality improvement, and teamwork. It could be adapted for use in other health systems.

摘要

背景

近年来,临床治理已成为许多国家卫生政策和服务管理的核心组成部分。然而,衡量其发展的工具却很有限。因此,我们创建了临床治理发展指数(CGDI),旨在衡量新西兰政府既定政策的实施情况。

方法

我们开展了一项调查,于2010年进行了分发,并于2012年再次分发给受雇于公立医院的资深医生。对六个调查项目的回答进行加权并合并,以形成CGDI。计算了新西兰每个地区卫生委员会(DHBs)的最终得分,以比较它们之间的表现以及两次调查之间随时间的变化情况。

结果

在这两项研究期间,新西兰在临床治理发展方面的整体表现从2010年的46%提高到了2012年的54%,各地区卫生委员会之间存在显著差异。除一项CGDI项目外,其他所有项目的表现均出现了具有统计学意义的变化。

结论

CGDI是一种简单而有效的方法,可探究组织对临床治理的承诺、受访者对组织设计的参与、质量改进和团队合作等方面。它可进行调整以适用于其他卫生系统。

相似文献

1
Measuring progress with clinical governance development in New Zealand: perceptions of senior doctors in 2010 and 2012.衡量新西兰临床治理发展的进展:2010年和2012年资深医生的看法。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 4;14:547. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0547-8.
2
The clinical governance development index: results from a New Zealand study.临床治理发展指数:来自新西兰的研究结果。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Nov;20(11):947-52. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2011.051482. Epub 2011 Jun 8.
3
Has the clinical governance development agenda stalled? Perceptions of New Zealand medical professionals in 2012 and 2017.临床治理发展议程是否停滞不前?2012 年和 2017 年新西兰医疗专业人士的看法。
Health Policy. 2020 Feb;124(2):183-188. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.12.013. Epub 2020 Jan 2.
4
Clinical governance in New Zealand: perceptions from registered health professionals in health care delivery compared with social insurance.新西兰的临床治理:医疗保健提供方面的注册健康专业人员与社会保险的看法比较。
Aust Health Rev. 2021 Dec;45(6):753-760. doi: 10.1071/AH21102.
5
Healthcare professionals' perceptions of clinical governance implementation: a qualitative New Zealand study of 3205 open-ended survey comments.医疗保健专业人员对临床治理实施的看法:新西兰的一项定性研究,对 3205 份开放式调查意见的分析。
BMJ Open. 2015 Jan 5;5(1):e006157. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006157.
6
Healthcare professional perspectives on quality and safety in New Zealand public hospitals: findings from a national survey.新西兰公立医院医疗专业人员对质量与安全的看法:一项全国性调查的结果
Aust Health Rev. 2014 Feb;38(1):109-14. doi: 10.1071/AH13116.
7
Are some health professionals more cognizant of clinical governance development concepts than others? Findings from a New Zealand study.某些健康专业人员是否比其他人员更了解临床治理发展概念?一项新西兰研究的结果。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2016 Jun;38(2):363-70. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdv045. Epub 2015 Apr 12.
8
Clinical governance development: learning from the New Zealand experience.临床治理发展:从新西兰经验中学习。
Postgrad Med J. 2014 Jan;90(1059):43-7. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131198. Epub 2013 Nov 6.
9
Do different approaches to clinical governance development and implementation make a difference? Findings from Ireland and New Zealand.不同的临床治理发展和实施方法是否有区别?来自爱尔兰和新西兰的发现。
J Health Organ Manag. 2017 Oct 9;31(7-8):682-695. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-04-2017-0069.
10
Democratising health care governance? New Zealand's inaugural district health board elections, 2001.医疗保健治理的民主化?2001年新西兰首届地区卫生委员会选举
Aust Health Rev. 2002;25(4):142-8. doi: 10.1071/ah020142.

引用本文的文献

1
Prioritizing barriers to implement clinical governance in teaching hospitals of Iran: A mixed method study.伊朗教学医院实施临床治理的障碍优先级排序:一项混合方法研究。
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Dec 18;33:140. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.140. eCollection 2019.
2
Creating sustainable health care systems.创建可持续的医疗保健系统。
J Health Organ Manag. 2019 Mar 18;33(1):18-34. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-02-2018-0065. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
3
The challenges of implementation of clinical governance in Iran: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.伊朗实施临床治理面临的挑战:定性研究的元综合。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Jan 9;17(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0399-5.
4
Healthcare professionals' perceptions of clinical governance implementation: a qualitative New Zealand study of 3205 open-ended survey comments.医疗保健专业人员对临床治理实施的看法:新西兰的一项定性研究,对 3205 份开放式调查意见的分析。
BMJ Open. 2015 Jan 5;5(1):e006157. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006157.

本文引用的文献

1
The top patient safety strategies that can be encouraged for adoption now.当下可鼓励采用的首要患者安全策略。
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Mar 5;158(5 Pt 2):365-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00001.
2
Comparing health policy agendas across eleven high income countries: islands of difference in a sea of similarity.比较十一个高收入国家的卫生政策议程:相似中的迥异之岛。
Health Policy. 2012 Jun;106(1):29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.04.011. Epub 2012 May 7.
3
In the 21st Century, what is an acceptable response rate?在21世纪,可接受的回应率是多少?
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012 Apr;36(2):106-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00854.x.
4
Medical engagement: a crucial underpinning to organizational performance.医疗参与:组织绩效的关键支撑。
Health Serv Manage Res. 2011 Aug;24(3):114-20. doi: 10.1258/hsmr.2011.011006.
5
Physician-leaders and hospital performance: is there an association?医生领袖和医院绩效:是否存在关联?
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):535-539. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.025. Epub 2011 Jul 6.
6
Improving teamwork in healthcare: current approaches and the path forward.改善医疗保健中的团队合作:当前方法与未来方向。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Aug;20(8):647-50. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000117. Epub 2011 Jun 28.
7
The clinical governance development index: results from a New Zealand study.临床治理发展指数:来自新西兰的研究结果。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Nov;20(11):947-52. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2011.051482. Epub 2011 Jun 8.
8
How Intermountain trimmed health care costs through robust quality improvement efforts.通过强有力的质量改进措施来降低成本。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Jun;30(6):1185-91. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0358. Epub 2011 May 19.
9
Big country, small country: how the United States debated health reform while New Zealand just got on with it.
Int J Clin Pract. 2010 Sep;64(10):1334-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02477.x.
10
OPTIGOV - A new methodology for evaluating Clinical Governance implementation by health providers.OPTIGOV-一种评估医疗服务提供者实施临床治理的新方法。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jun 21;10:174. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-174.