• 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

通过针对初级保健中的急性肾损伤(AKI)来提高患者安全性的计算机化审核和反馈仪表板的混合方法评估。

Mixed methods evaluation of a computerised audit and feedback dashboard to improve patient safety through targeting acute kidney injury (AKI) in primary care.

机构信息

NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Centre for Health Informatics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (GMPSTRC), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Centre for Health Informatics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (GMPSTRC), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Int J Med Inform. 2021 Jan;145:104299. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104299. Epub 2020 Oct 13.

DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104299
PMID:33099183
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Reducing the harms associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) requires addressing a wide range of patient safety issues, including polypharmacy and transitions of care, particularly for vulnerable patient groups. Computerised audit and feedback can transform the way healthcare organisations measure, analyse and learn from quality and safety data across different care settings, potentially improving patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

To implement and evaluate an audit and feedback dashboard targeting AKI to improve patient safety, focusing on factors affecting a range of user characteristics in primary care.

METHODS

We performed a mixed methods study in three stages. Semi-structured interviews were initially performed with both primary (n = 10) and secondary care (n = 5) staff to gather user requirements for six quality indicators extracted from national guidance on post-discharge AKI care. Modified indicators were implemented in the Performance Improvement plaN GeneratoR (PINGR) audit and feedback dashboard for six months, across 45 general practices in Salford. Primary care professionals were then interviewed again (n = 7) and completed usability questionnaires. This was triangulated with an interrupted time series analysis on indicator performance, alongside software usage statistics.

RESULTS

Improvements were observed for the indicators for medication review (+9.01 %; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI), +6.95 % to +11.06 %) and blood pressure measurement (+5.20 %; 95 % CI + 3.61 % to +6.78 %). Variable performance and engagement were observed for other indicators including AKI coding (+0.39 %; 95 % CI -1.88 % to +2.65 %), serum creatinine (-3.40 %; 95 % CI -7.66 % to +0.85 %), proteinuria (-1.08 %; 95 % CI -1.47 % to +0.32 %) and providing patient information (+0.16 %; 95 % CI -0.41 % to +0.73 %). A key facilitator to engagement was the development of 'champions of change', achieved through a raised awareness of high-risk patients, guidelines, inconsistencies in coding practice and evidence for quality and safety performance. Barriers related to the specificity and perceived achievability of indicators, and limitations in resources.

CONCLUSION

In a six-month, quasi-experimental evaluation of an electronic audit and feedback dashboard targeting AKI, we found improvements for two out of six quality indicators. While information technology can facilitate improvements in patient safety, further allocation of protected staff time and investment into shared learning are needed to realise those improvements in practice.

摘要

背景

降低急性肾损伤(AKI)相关危害需要解决广泛的患者安全问题,包括多种药物治疗和医疗护理交接,尤其是对于脆弱的患者群体。计算机化的审核和反馈可以改变医疗保健组织在不同医疗环境中衡量、分析和学习质量和安全数据的方式,从而有可能提高患者安全性。

目的

实施并评估针对 AKI 的审核和反馈仪表板,以改善患者安全性,重点关注影响初级保健中各种用户特征的因素。

方法

我们分三个阶段进行了一项混合方法研究。最初对初级保健(n=10)和二级保健(n=5)工作人员进行了半结构化访谈,以收集从国家发布的 AKI 出院后护理指南中提取的六个质量指标的用户需求。修改后的指标在 Performance Improvement plaN GeneratoR(PINGR)审核和反馈仪表板中实施了六个月,在索尔福德的 45 个普通诊所中使用。然后再次对初级保健专业人员(n=7)进行访谈,并完成了可用性问卷调查。这与指标性能的中断时间序列分析以及软件使用统计数据进行了三角测量。

结果

观察到药物审查(+9.01%;95%置信区间(CI),+6.95%至+11.06%)和血压测量(+5.20%;95%CI+3.61%至+6.78%)指标的改善。其他指标的表现和参与度存在差异,包括 AKI 编码(+0.39%;95%CI-1.88%至+2.65%)、血清肌酐(-3.40%;95%CI-7.66%至+0.85%)、蛋白尿(-1.08%;95%CI-1.47%至+0.32%)和提供患者信息(+0.16%;95%CI-0.41%至+0.73%)。参与的一个关键促进因素是“变革的拥护者”的发展,这是通过提高对高危患者、指南、编码实践中的不一致性以及质量和安全绩效的认识来实现的。障碍与指标的特异性和可实现性感知以及资源限制有关。

结论

在针对 AKI 的电子审核和反馈仪表板的为期六个月的准实验评估中,我们发现有两个质量指标得到了改善。虽然信息技术可以促进患者安全的改善,但需要进一步分配受保护的员工时间和投资用于共享学习,以在实践中实现这些改善。

相似文献

1
Mixed methods evaluation of a computerised audit and feedback dashboard to improve patient safety through targeting acute kidney injury (AKI) in primary care.通过针对初级保健中的急性肾损伤(AKI)来提高患者安全性的计算机化审核和反馈仪表板的混合方法评估。
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Jan;145:104299. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104299. Epub 2020 Oct 13.
2
Post-discharge care following acute kidney injury: quality improvement in primary care.急性肾损伤出院后的护理:初级保健中的质量改进。
BMJ Open Qual. 2020 Dec;9(4). doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000891.
3
SMASH! The Salford medication safety dashboard.猛击!索尔福德药物安全仪表盘。
J Innov Health Inform. 2018 Oct 18;25(3):183-193. doi: 10.14236/jhi.v25i3.1015.
4
Multi-method laboratory user evaluation of an actionable clinical performance information system: Implications for usability and patient safety.多方法实验室用户对可操作临床绩效信息系统的评估:对可用性和患者安全的影响。
J Biomed Inform. 2018 Jan;77:62-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.11.008. Epub 2017 Nov 13.
5
Developing a learning health system: Insights from a qualitative process evaluation of a pharmacist-led electronic audit and feedback intervention to improve medication safety in primary care.开发学习型卫生系统:一项药师主导的电子审核和反馈干预措施改善初级保健药物安全的定性过程评估的见解。
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 26;13(10):e0205419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205419. eCollection 2018.
6
Interface design recommendations for computerised clinical audit and feedback: Hybrid usability evidence from a research-led system.计算机化临床审计与反馈的界面设计建议:来自一个以研究为导向的系统的混合可用性证据。
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Oct;94:191-206. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.010. Epub 2016 Jul 16.
7
A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol.安大略省母婴仪表盘的混合方法评估:仪表盘属性、背景因素以及使用的促进因素和障碍:一项研究方案
Implement Sci. 2016 May 4;11:59. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0427-1.
8
The Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Veterans Discharged From the Emergency Department (EQUIPPED) Potentially Inappropriate Medication Dashboard: A Suitable Alternative to the In-person Academic Detailing and Standardized Feedback Reports of Traditional EQUIPPED?从急诊出院的老年退伍军人改善处方实践质量(EQUIPPED)潜在不适当药物仪表板:替代传统 EQUIPPED 的面对面学术细化和标准化反馈报告的合适方法?
Clin Ther. 2020 Apr;42(4):573-582. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.02.013. Epub 2020 Mar 25.
9
10
Evaluating a process of academic detailing in primary care: an educational programme for acute kidney injury.评价初级保健中的学术细化过程:急性肾损伤的教育计划。
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jul 9;19(1):253. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1659-y.

引用本文的文献

1
Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.利益相关者对临床人工智能实施的观点:定性证据的系统评价。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jan 10;25:e39742. doi: 10.2196/39742.
2
Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.医疗保健领域计算机化审核与反馈系统的系统评价及叙述性综合分析
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 May 11;29(6):1106-1119. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac031.
3
Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Innovations and Opportunities.
健康信息学中的人为因素和组织问题:创新与机遇。
Yearb Med Inform. 2021 Aug;30(1):91-99. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1726511. Epub 2021 Sep 3.