Mehta V, Kushniruk A, Gauthier S, Richard Y, Deland E, Veilleux M, Grant A
Centre for Research and Evaluation in Diagnostics, Centre Universitaire de Santé de l'Estrie, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Int J Med Inform. 1998 Aug-Sep;51(2-3):169-80. doi: 10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00113-0.
The Autocontrol Project is concerned with the accessing, processing and communication of high quality information so that a clinical team can make and implement decisions for practice change, and then evaluate if improvement has been achieved. High quality information is used as evidence for change. In this study, we have evaluated how evidence is used by a clinical team to explain an identified problem of inappropriate use of blood gas tests. In an experimental study of the Surgical Intensive Care Unit, video recordings of team meetings of nurses and doctors were undertaken, structured according to a problem-based format. Evidence of current practice patterns derived from the hospital information system, as well as the results of a questionnaire to the unit's staff about knowledge and use of blood gas measurements, were supplied to the participants beforehand. At the second meeting, the output of the first meetings and a summarised analysis of pertinent literature were made available. This second meeting was required to finalise the list of causes of inappropriate blood gas use and propose pragmatic strategies for practice change. The video data of the meetings were coded to analyse the use of evidence, the categories of causes, issues and solutions proposed, and the quality of team interaction. The results indicate that in order to achieve consensus, the team used different types of evidence, including objective evidence of practice patterns, personal experience about direct and indirect organisational influences, and literature-based research evidence of best practice. Furthermore, group dynamics were favoured by the problem-based meeting structure, and a high level of cognitive critiquing between team members was observed. This research suggests that a combination of approaches involving identification of both operational factors (e.g. appropriate access to different types of evidence and meeting structure) and cognitive and behavioural approaches (e.g. ensuring expression of different viewpoints) is needed to support strategic decision-making for practice change in a clinical unit. This combined approach should favourably influence the provision of an effective and efficient evidence support environment for the clinical team.
自动控制项目关注高质量信息的获取、处理和交流,以便临床团队能够做出并实施实践变革的决策,然后评估是否实现了改进。高质量信息被用作变革的证据。在本研究中,我们评估了临床团队如何利用证据来解释已确定的血气检测使用不当问题。在一项针对外科重症监护病房的实验研究中,按照基于问题的形式对护士和医生的团队会议进行了视频记录。事先向参与者提供了源自医院信息系统的当前实践模式证据,以及一份针对该科室工作人员关于血气测量知识和使用情况的调查问卷结果。在第二次会议上,提供了第一次会议的成果以及相关文献的总结分析。此次第二次会议要求确定血气使用不当的原因清单,并提出实践变革的务实策略。对会议的视频数据进行编码,以分析证据的使用、提出的原因类别、问题和解决方案,以及团队互动的质量。结果表明,为了达成共识,团队使用了不同类型的证据,包括实践模式的客观证据、关于直接和间接组织影响的个人经验,以及基于文献的最佳实践研究证据。此外,基于问题的会议结构有利于团队动态,并且观察到团队成员之间有高水平的认知批判。这项研究表明,需要将涉及识别操作因素(如适当获取不同类型的证据和会议结构)以及认知和行为方法(如确保表达不同观点)的方法结合起来,以支持临床科室实践变革的战略决策。这种综合方法应该会对为临床团队提供有效且高效的证据支持环境产生积极影响。