首页> 外文期刊>Archives of disease in childhood >An evaluation of Medline published paediatric audits from 1966 to 1999.
【24h】

An evaluation of Medline published paediatric audits from 1966 to 1999.

机译:1966年至1999年,对Medline的评估发表了儿科审核。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

AIM: To evaluate the quality of paediatric audits from 1966 to 1999. METHODS: A Medline search was performed using the MeSH terms audit, child, paediatric (and pediatric). Predefined core elements of audit were used as inclusion criteria for entry of an article into this study. These criteria were as follows: (1) an article deals with a healthcare topic; (2) a standard is predefined; (3) actual practice is evaluated; (4) actual practice is compared with the standard. The fifth criterion of audit, dissemination of information and reaudit, was not an inclusion criterion, as it was not used in the early years covered by this study. Empirical grading of standards was used. RESULTS: The search yielded 442 articles, of which 303 (100%) were related to paediatric healthcare and were reviewed. Standards were defined in 115 (38%) articles. Audit against the standard was performed in 92 (30.4%) articles, of which 42 (45.6%) were published before, and 50 (54.3%) after, 1990. 18 (5.9%) articles were re-audited: 6 (14.3%) were published before, and 12 (24%) after, 1990. Of the 188 paediatric studies rejected, 119 (63.3%) described practice observations. CONCLUSION: Many articles in paediatrics are published as "audits", but they do not contain the core elements of audit. Although audit is a potentially valuable tool in clinical medicine, the publication of poor-quality audits may lead to the decline of the audit concept. Suggestions on ways to improve the quality of published audits are made.
机译:目的:评估1966年至1999年儿科检查的质量。方法:使用MeSH术语审核,儿童,儿科(和儿科)进行Medline搜索。预定义的审核核心要素用作将文章纳入本研究的纳入标准。这些标准如下:(1)一篇涉及医疗保健主题的文章; (2)预定义了标准; (3)对实践进行评价; (4)将实际与标准进行比较。审计的第五条准则,即信息传播和重新审计,不是一项纳入准则,因为本研究涵盖的早期阶段并未使用该准则。使用标准的经验等级。结果:搜索获得442篇文章,其中303篇(100%)与儿科医疗保健有关并进行了审查。在115(38%)篇文章中定义了标准。在1990年之前,有92(30.4%)篇文章对该标准进行了审核,其中42篇(45.6%)在其后发表,之后50篇(54.3%)在此之后。18篇(5.9%)被重新审核:6篇(14.3%) )发表于1990年之前,之后12篇(占24%)。在188项被拒绝的儿科研究中,有119篇(占63.3%)描述了实践观察。结论:许多儿科文章被发表为“审计”,但它们不包含审计的核心要素。尽管审核是临床医学中潜在的有价值的工具,但是质量低下的审核的发布可能会导致审核概念的下降。提出了提高已发布审核质量的方法的建议。

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