Suppr超能文献

一项关于葡萄牙医院安全用药实践衡量的全国性电子德尔菲法。

A national e-Delphi towards the measurement of safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals.

作者信息

Guerreiro Mara Pereira, Plácido Madalena, Barros Carla Teixeira, Coelho Anabela, Graça Anabela, Gaspar Maria João, de Oliveira Martins Sofia

机构信息

Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Lisboa (ESEL), Lisboa, Portugal.

Centro de investigação interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Superior de Ciências da Saúde Egas Moniz (ISCSEM), Monte de Caparica, Portugal.

出版信息

Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2018 Mar;25(2):103-106. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-000955. Epub 2016 Jun 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the face and content validity of items for measuring safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals.

METHODS

128 items were drafted from content analysis of existing questionnaires and the literature, employing preferred terms of the WHO International Classification for Patient Safety (Portuguese version). A two-round e-Delphi was convened, using a purposive multidisciplinary panel. Hospital-based experts were asked to rate the relevance of items on a 7-point Likert scale and to comment on their clarity and completeness.

RESULTS

The response rate was similar in both rounds (70.3% and 73.4%, respectively). In the first round 91/128 (71.1%) items reached the predefined level of positive consensus. In the second round 23 additional items reached positive consensus, as well as seven items newly derived by the panel.

CONCLUSIONS

Most items have face and content validity, indicating relevance and clarity, and can be included in a future questionnaire for measuring safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals.

摘要

目的

确定用于衡量葡萄牙医院安全用药实践的项目的表面效度和内容效度。

方法

通过对现有问卷和文献进行内容分析,并采用世界卫生组织国际患者安全分类(葡萄牙语版)的首选术语,起草了128个项目。利用一个有目的的多学科小组召开了两轮电子德尔菲法。要求医院专家对项目的相关性进行7点李克特量表评分,并对其清晰度和完整性发表评论。

结果

两轮的回复率相似(分别为70.3%和73.4%)。在第一轮中,91/128(71.1%)个项目达到了预先定义的积极共识水平。在第二轮中,又有23个项目达成了积极共识,还有7个项目是由小组新提出的。

结论

大多数项目具有表面效度和内容效度,表明具有相关性和清晰度,可纳入未来用于衡量葡萄牙医院安全用药实践的问卷中。

相似文献

1
A national e-Delphi towards the measurement of safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals.
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2018 Mar;25(2):103-106. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-000955. Epub 2016 Jun 10.
3
A Delphi study to identify content for a new questionnaire based on the 10 Principles of Dignity in Care.
J Clin Nurs. 2022 Jul;31(13-14):1960-1971. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15462. Epub 2020 Sep 7.
5
Portuguese Consensus and Recommendations for Acquired Coagulopathic Bleeding Management (CCBM).
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2021 Jan-Dec;27:10760296211003984. doi: 10.1177/10760296211003984.
6
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the ABC taxonomy for medication adherence into Portuguese - Updating patients into people.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2023 Apr;19(4):653-659. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.12.010. Epub 2023 Jan 2.
7
Development and Delphi validation of a Best Possible Medication History form.
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2023 Mar;30(2):77-85. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2021-003095. Epub 2022 Apr 12.
9
ESPACOMP Medication Adherence Reporting Guidelines (EMERGE): a reactive-Delphi study protocol.
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 10;7(2):e013496. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013496.
10
Essential Features of an Interstitial Lung Disease Multidisciplinary Meeting: An International Delphi Survey.
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022 Jan;19(1):66-73. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202011-1421OC.

引用本文的文献

1
Establishing the Content Validity of a Student Pharmacist Patient Counseling Competency Assessment in Oncology.
Am J Pharm Educ. 2022 Aug;86(6):8708. doi: 10.5688/ajpe8708. Epub 2021 Oct 25.

本文引用的文献

3
[Content validity in the development and adaptation processes of measurement instruments].
Cien Saude Colet. 2011 Jul;16(7):3061-8. doi: 10.1590/s1413-81232011000800006.
4
Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review.
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020476. Epub 2011 Jun 9.
5
The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review.
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Jun;17(3):216-23. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023622.
6
The investigation and analysis of critical incidents and adverse events in healthcare.
Health Technol Assess. 2005 May;9(19):1-143, iii. doi: 10.3310/hta9190.
8
Human error: models and management.
BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):768-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768.

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