首页> 外文期刊>Physiotherapy theory and practice >Improving access in rheumatology: Evaluating the validity of a paper triage process involving an advanced practice physiotherapist through a retrospective chart review
【24h】

Improving access in rheumatology: Evaluating the validity of a paper triage process involving an advanced practice physiotherapist through a retrospective chart review

机译:通过回顾性图表评估,改善风湿病的访问:评估涉及高级实践物理治疗师的纸张分类过程的有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objectives: This study evaluated a standardized paper triage process conducted by an advanced practice physiotherapist (APP) at a rheumatology center. The aims were to (1) determine the concordance between paper triage priority assignment and the rheumatologist's diagnosis; (2) determine the sensitivity and specificity of the paper triage process; and (3) assess reasons for incorrect priority ranking. Methods: Referrals were triaged by a formally trained APP into one of the three priorities, guided by a priority referral tool. A retrospective review of 192 charts was performed. Raw proportion of agreement between paper triage and rheumatologist's diagnosis was supplemented by a prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Priority categories were collapsed to calculate sensitivity and specificity. For discordant cases, additional information was collected from the referral and chart to identify potential features leading to discrepancy. Results: Overall agreement was 76%. The PABAK was 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.70-0.90]. Sensitivity ranged 0.64-0.92 and specificity ranged 0.81-0.94, depending on the priority category. Forty-six cases were discordant, with the APP choosing a higher priority in 37 cases. An incorrect diagnosis from the family physician with no supporting information for the paper triage led to discordance in 16 cases. Conclusion: A standardized paper triage process conducted by an APP showed substantial concordance, sensitivity, and specificity.
机译:目的:本研究评估了在风湿病学中心的高级实践物理治疗师(APP)进行的标准化纸张分类过程。目的是(1)确定纸张分类优先权分配和风湿病学家的诊断之间的一致性; (2)确定纸张分流过程的敏感性和特异性; (3)评估优先级排名不正确的原因。方法:通过正式培训的应用程序将推荐的应用程序分为三个优先级之一,由优先转介工具引导。对192年图表进行了回顾性审查。纸张分类和风湿病学诊断之间的原始比例进行了补充,调整了普及调整后的偏见调整的κ(Pabak)。优先级类别折叠以计算灵敏度和特异性。对于不和谐的案例,从推荐和图表中收集了附加信息,以确定导致差异的潜在功能。结果:总体协议为76%。 Pabak为0.80 [95%置信区间0.70-0.90]。灵敏度范围为0.64-0.92,特异性范围为0.81-0.94,具体取决于优先级类别。不和谐46例,应用程序在37例中选择更高的优先级。家庭医师的诊断不正确,没有支持纸张分类的支持,导致16例不一致。结论:应用程序进行的标准化纸张分类过程显示了大量的一致性,敏感性和特异性。

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