首页> 外文学位 >Three alternative structural configurations for phlebotomy: A comparison of effectiveness and efficiency.
【24h】

Three alternative structural configurations for phlebotomy: A comparison of effectiveness and efficiency.

机译:静脉放血的三种可选结构配置:有效性和效率的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In recent years hospitals have utilized many methods to improve the efficiency and quality of their services. In an effort to improve patient satisfaction by reducing delays and the number of health professionals encountered during a hospital stay, some hospitals have implemented a patient-focused care model which includes decentralizing inpatient phlebotomy services.;A prospective correlational design was used to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of three alternative structural configurations of inpatient blood collection: centralized, hybrid and decentralized. A random sample of laboratories across the United States was selected from a purchased data subscription. Laboratory managers were asked to complete an organizational survey and collect data on inpatient blood specimens during a 30-day data collection period.;Effectiveness of the blood collection process was measured by the percentage of specimens rejected during the data collection period. Results from the analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference in the percentage of specimens rejected for the three phlebotomy configurations: centralized, hybrid, and decentralized [F (2, 28) = 4.27, p = .02] with an effect size of .23. Post-hoc comparison using Tukey's HSD indicated that the mean percentage of specimens rejected for centralized phlebotomy (M = .045, SD = 0.36) was significantly different from the decentralized configuration (M = 1.42, SD = 0.92, p = .03).;The relative efficiency as measured by DEA was not found to vary significantly among the three phlebotomy configurations [F (2, 11) = 1.672, p = .23] after controlling for average daily census. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size and unequal groups.;Results from this study support the hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the percentage of specimens rejected (effectiveness) for decentralized versus centralized inpatient phlebotomy services. The centralized phlebotomy configuration was found to be more effective when compared to the decentralized configuration. Laboratories in the study which utilized alternative phlebotomy configurations did not demonstrate equivalent performance and therefore are not equifinal.;In addition to phlebotomy configuration, the current study found that facilities that provide on the job training for specimen collectors have a lower percentage of specimens rejected.
机译:近年来,医院已采用许多方法来提高服务效率和质量。为了通过减少延误和减少住院期间遇到的卫生专业人员的数量来提高患者满意度,一些医院已经实施了以患者为中心的护理模型,其中包括分散住院放血的服务。;采用前瞻性相关设计来​​比较有效性和三种可选的住院血液采集结构配置:集中式,混合式和分散式。从购买的数据订阅中选择了美国各地实验室的随机样本。要求实验室管理者完成组织调查并在30天的数据收集期内收集住院患者血液样本的数据。;血液收集过程的有效性通过在数据收集期间拒绝的样本百分比来衡量。方差分析的结果表明,针对三种放血配置(集中式,混合式和分散式)[F(2,28)= 4.27,p = .02]的放血样本被拒绝的标本百分比具有统计学上的显着差异,影响大小为。 23。使用Tukey的HSD进行事后比较表明,集中静脉切开术拒绝的标本的平均百分比(M = .045,SD = 0.36)与分散配置明显不同(M = 1.42,SD = 0.92,p = .03)。 ;在控制了每日平均人口普查后,在三种放血术配置中,用DEA测得的相对效率没有显着差异[F(2,11)= 1.672,p = .23]。由于样本量小且组数不相等,因此应谨慎解释这些结果。本研究的结果支持以下假设:分散式和集中式静脉放血服务拒绝样本的百分比(有效性)存在显着差异。与分散式配置相比,发现集中式静脉切开术配置更为有效。该研究中使用替代静脉切开术配置的实验室没有表现出同等的性能,因此并不等同。除了静脉切开术配置,当前的研究发现,为标本采集者提供在职培训的设施被剔除标本的比例更低。

著录项

  • 作者

    Mannion, Heidi Ann.;

  • 作者单位

    Virginia Commonwealth University.;

  • 授予单位 Virginia Commonwealth University.;
  • 学科 Health care management.;Pathology.;Nursing.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2005
  • 页码 111 p.
  • 总页数 111
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号