McClellan W M, Soucie J M, Krisher J, Caruana R, Haley W, Farmer C
Department of Medicine, Center for Clinical Evaluation Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Am J Kidney Dis. 1998 Apr;31(4):584-92. doi: 10.1053/ajkd.1998.v31.pm9531173.
To determine the impact of a quality improvement intervention on dialysis care delivered to hemodialysis patients, we studied 213 hemodialysis facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Dialysis adequacy measurements made on two random samples of 30 patients per treatment center, or all patients if fewer than 30 were treated, selected in October 1994 (preintervention) and October 1995 (postintervention) were used to estimate the facility mean urea reduction ratio (URR) and the proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50%. The 10% of facilities (n = 22) with the highest proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50% in the facility at preintervention were selected for an intervention that included feedback of facility-specific mean URR, educational programs, a quality improvement workshop, and monitoring until improvement was attained. Changes between preintervention and postintervention facility mean URR and proportions of patients with a URR less than 60% and 65% were used to assess the impact of the intervention. After 1 year, the mean URR had increased an average of 7% in intervention centers compared with an increase of 1.4% (P < 0.001) in the remainder of the treatment centers in the Network. There was an average reduction of 17.2% in the proportion of patients with a URR less than 65% in intervention centers compared with 4.8% in the other facilities (P < 0.001). Comparable reductions in the proportion of patients with a mean URR of less than 60% were 16.2% in intervention centers and 2.0% in comparison facilities (P < 0.001). After controlling for facility case mix and other characteristics, the intervention was independently associated with an absolute 2.4% increase in facility-specific mean URR. We conclude that the intervention was associated with improvement in hemodialysis care.
为确定质量改进干预措施对血液透析患者透析治疗的影响,我们研究了北卡罗来纳州、南卡罗来纳州和佐治亚州的213家血液透析机构。对1994年10月(干预前)和1995年10月(干预后)每个治疗中心随机抽取的30例患者的两个样本(若治疗患者少于30例,则为所有患者)进行透析充分性测量,以估算机构平均尿素清除率(URR)以及平均URR低于50%的患者比例。选取干预前机构中平均URR低于50%的患者比例最高的10%的机构(n = 22)进行干预,干预措施包括提供机构特定的平均URR反馈、开展教育项目、举办质量改进研讨会并进行监测,直至取得改进。通过比较干预前和干预后机构平均URR以及URR低于60%和65%的患者比例的变化,来评估干预措施的影响。1年后,干预中心的平均URR平均提高了7%,而网络中其余治疗中心仅提高了1.4%(P < 0.001)。干预中心URR低于65%的患者比例平均降低了17.2%,而其他机构降低了4.8%(P < 0.001)。平均URR低于60%的患者比例在干预中心降低了16.2%,在对照机构降低了2.0%(P < 0.001)。在控制了机构病例组合及其他特征后,该干预措施与机构特定平均URR绝对提高2.4%独立相关。我们得出结论,该干预措施与血液透析治疗的改善相关。