首页> 外文期刊>The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners >Randomised controlled trial of the impact of guidelines, prioritized review criteria and feedback on implementation of recommendations for angina and asthma.
【24h】

Randomised controlled trial of the impact of guidelines, prioritized review criteria and feedback on implementation of recommendations for angina and asthma.

机译:指南影响,优先审查标准和对心绞痛和哮喘建议实施情况的反馈的随机对照试验。

获取原文
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are frequently used in an attempt to influence the performance of health professionals, and a national agency has been established in England and Wales to develop and disseminate guidelines. Professionals prefer short guidelines that highlight key recommendations, but whether such guidelines are more likely to be implemented is unknown. AIM: To determine the relative impact of the dissemination of full guidelines, reduced guidelines in the form of prioritized review criteria, and review criteria supplemented by feedback. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised controlled trial, with an incomplete block design. SETTING: Eighty-one general practices in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, North Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire. METHOD: The practices received one of the study interventions, either for care of adults with asthma or for care of people with angina. Data were collected before and after the interventions, the process measures being adherence to ten recommendations about asthma and 14 about angina, and outcome measures being scores in response to an asthma symptom questionnaire or the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and levels of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: There were no consistent differences between the interventions in stimulating improvements in performance as indicated by adherence to the recommendations for asthma or angina. Patients with angina in practices that had received criteria or criteria plus feedback reported better symptom control. CONCLUSION: The dissemination of guidelines in the format of prioritized review criteria does not increase adherence to recommendations in comparison with the traditional guideline format, and the further provision of feedback has minimal additional effect.
机译:背景:指南经常被用来影响卫生专业人员的绩效,并且在英格兰和威尔士已经建立了一个国家机构来制定和传播指南。专业人士更喜欢强调关键建议的简短指南,但是尚不清楚此类指南是否更有可能实施。目的:确定传播完整指南的相对影响,以优先审查标准的形式减少指南,并在反馈的基础上补充审查标准。研究设计:分组随机对照试验,具有不完整的组设计。地点:莱斯特郡,林肯郡,北安普敦郡,北德比郡和诺丁汉郡的八十一个普通诊所。方法:该实践接受了一项研究干预措施,用于护理患有哮喘的成人或用于预防心绞痛的患者。在干预之前和之后收集数据,过程测量遵循关于哮喘的十项建议,关于心绞痛的建议十四项,结果测量是对哮喘症状问卷或西雅图心绞痛问卷的回答得分,以及患者满意度。结果:坚持哮喘或心绞痛的建议表明,在刺激性能改善的干预措施之间没有一致的差异。曾接受过一种或多种标准加反馈意见的实践中患有心绞痛的患者报告了更好的症状控制。结论:与传统指南格式相比,以优先审阅标准的格式传播指南并没有增加对建议的遵守,并且进一步提供反馈意见的影响最小。

著录项

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