首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >Quality Management Systems in the Ambulant Sector: An Analytical Comparison of Different Quality Management Systems
【2h】

Quality Management Systems in the Ambulant Sector: An Analytical Comparison of Different Quality Management Systems

机译:流动部门的质量管理体系:不同质量管理体系的分析比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Since 1 January 2004, all physicians, psychotherapists, and medical care centers that are under contract to statutory healthcare in Germany are obliged, according to § 135a Section 2 of the Fifth Social Security Statute Book, to introduce an intra-institutional quality management system. Methods: A total of 24 medical practices were chosen through random sampling. In total, there were 12 family physicians and specialist practices each and eight practices each per quality management system. The analysis was carried out with the help of three specially developed questionnaires (physician, employee, and patient). A total of 26 quality categories with different questions were available in the three survey groups (physicians, employees, and patients). The Kruskal–Wallis test checked the extent to which the different scores between the quality management systems were significant and effective for specialists or family physicians. Results: ”Quality and Development in Practices (QEP)” had the highest average score. Due to a specific family practitioner specialism, “Quality management in Saxony medical practices (QisA)” followed with good average scores. The individual quality categories in the quality management systems, such as the “range of services” or “allocation of appointments”, received the highest average scores among the specialists. In contrast, categories such as “telephone enquiries” and “external cooperation and communication” received the highest average scores among the family physicians. Conclusion: Differences in the evaluation of quality management systems and medical groups (specialists/family physicians) were found in the study. The reasons for these differences could be found in the quality categories.
机译:背景:自2004年1月1日起,根据《第五份社会保障法》第135a条第2款的规定,德国所有与法定医疗保健签约的医生,心理治疗师和医疗中心都有义务实行机构内部质量管理系统。方法:通过随机抽样总共选择了24种医疗实践。总共有12位家庭医生和专科医生,每个质量管理体系有8位。借助三份专门开发的调查表(医生,员工和患者)进行了分析。在三个调查组(医师,雇员和患者)中,共有26个具有不同问题的质量类别。 Kruskal–Wallis检验检查了质量管理体系之间不同分数对专家或家庭医生的显着和有效程度。结果:“实践质量与发展(QEP)”的平均得分最高。由于特殊的家庭医生专业知识,“萨克森医学实践质量管理(QisA)”紧随其后。质量管理体系中的各个质量类别,例如“服务范围”或“任命分配”,在专家中平均得分最高。相比之下,“电话查询”和“外部合作与沟通”等类别在家庭医生中得分最高。结论:在研究中发现了质量管理体系和医疗组(专家/家庭医生)的评估差异。这些差异的原因可以在质量类别中找到。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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