Suppr超能文献

参与远程学习和审核是否能改善急性哮喘发作患者的护理?哮喘全科医生小组。

Does participation in distance learning and audit improve the care of patients with acute asthma attacks? The General Practitioners in Asthma Group.

作者信息

Hoskins G, Neville R G, Smith B, Clark R A

出版信息

Health Bull (Edinb). 1997 May;55(3):150-5.

PMID:9364102
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test whether general practitioners who completed an audit cycle encompassing a data recording exercise, distance learning programme and personalized feedback changed their management of patients with acute asthma attacks.

DESIGN, SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Practice and patient details from two national correspondence surveys of the management of acute asthma attacks in the United Kingdom in 1991-92 and 1992-93 were compared. Main outcome measures were use of nebulised bronchodilators, systemic steroids during an asthma attack, and increased use of prophylactic therapy after attacks.

RESULTS

Ninety-one general practitioners completed an audit cycle and reported data on 782 patients with asthma attacks in 1991-92 and 669 in 1992-93. There were no significant changes in practice resources during this time. Management changed in line with recommended guidelines and audit feedback suggestions leading to more use of nebulised bronchodilators [272 (35%) before, 268 (40%) after, Odds Ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 0.64-0.99], systemic steroids [563 (72%) before, 506 (76%) after, OR 0.83, CI 0.65-1.06], and 'step-up' in preventative therapy [402 (51%) before, 382 (57%) after, OR 0.79, CI 0.64-0.98].

CONCLUSION

General Practitioners who completed an audit cycle showed changes in the management of acute asthma attacks in line with guidelines which may have been caused by participation in distance learning and clinical audit. However, general practitioners motivated to change clinical management may be similarly motivated to take part in audit. Audit may be the catalyst for change rather than the cause of change.

摘要

目的

测试完成一个包含数据记录活动、远程学习项目和个性化反馈的审核周期的全科医生,其对急性哮喘发作患者的管理是否发生改变。

设计、设置与研究对象:比较了1991 - 1992年和1992 - 1993年英国两次全国性急性哮喘发作管理通信调查中的诊所及患者详细信息。主要结局指标为雾化支气管扩张剂的使用情况、哮喘发作期间全身用类固醇的使用情况以及发作后预防性治疗使用的增加情况。

结果

91名全科医生完成了一个审核周期,并报告了1991 - 1992年782例哮喘发作患者和1992 - 1993年669例患者的数据。在此期间,诊所资源无显著变化。管理方式根据推荐指南和审核反馈建议发生了改变,导致雾化支气管扩张剂的使用增多[之前为272例(35%),之后为268例(40%),优势比(OR)0.80,95%置信区间(CI)0.64 - 0.99],全身用类固醇的使用情况[之前为563例(72%),之后为506例(76%),OR 0.83,CI 0.65 - 1.06],以及预防性治疗“升级”[之前为402例(51%),之后为382例(57%),OR 0.79,CI 0.64 - 0.98]。

结论

完成审核周期的全科医生在急性哮喘发作管理方面的改变符合指南,这可能是由于参与远程学习和临床审核所致。然而,有改变临床管理动机的全科医生可能同样有参与审核的动机。审核可能是改变的催化剂而非改变的原因。

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