首页> 外文OA文献 >SIQINS - Strengthening Quality Improvement Intervention reporting in Surgery
【2h】

SIQINS - Strengthening Quality Improvement Intervention reporting in Surgery

机译:SIQINS-加强手术质量改进干预报告

摘要

Background: Surgical quality improvement (QI) research has been conducted with promising results, but translating learning into practice is complicated by incomplete reporting. This research aimed to identify which reporting items are most frequently incomplete, and why incomplete reporting occurs.\udMethods: A systematic review aimed to identify the current standard of reporting in the surgical QI literature. MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Articles were scored against a modified Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.\udA qualitative interview study was conducted. QI authors, consumers (those who apply QI research in practice), editors and reporting guideline authors were interviewed to identify why reporting is hard. An author checking exercise involved asking the interview participants to describe how they would replicate an intervention described in a QI article. The article’s authors checked whether their intervention matched the participants’ interpretation. Data was analysed using the constant comparative method.\udResults: The systematic review identified 100 relevant articles. Reporting of fidelity was absent in 74% of articles; and modifications were absent in 73%.\udParticipants (42) in the qualitative study included: 15 authors, 12 consumers, 11 journal editors and four reporting guideline authors. Of these, 28 were clinicians. Reporting QI is hard because: QI is an emerging field; features of hospitals and journals create tensions for reporting; context is hard to describe; publications are not always intended to be used for exact replication.\udDiscussion and conclusion: QI is a youthful field but stakeholders have well developed aspirations for QI reporting. As the field matures, those involved in QI reporting place value on describing context, identifying active ingredients, and recognising how QI publications are to be used in practice. This research is relevant to an international audience and could help galvanise a renewed sense of importance for reporting.
机译:背景:外科手术质量改善(QI)研究已经取得了可喜的成果,但是由于报告不完整,将学习转化为实践非常困难。这项研究旨在确定哪些报告项目最经常不完整,以及为什么发生不完整报告。\ ud方法:系统综述旨在确定外科QI文献中当前的报告标准。检索MEDLINE,Scopus和Cochrane对照试验中央注册簿(CENTRAL)。文章根据修改后的干预描述和复制模板(TIDieR)清单进行评分。\ ud进行了定性访谈研究。对QI的作者,消费者(在实践中应用QI研究的人),编辑和报告指南的作者进行了采访,以查明为什么报告很难。一项作者检查练习涉及要求采访对象描述他们将如何复制QI文章中描述的干预措施。文章的作者检查了他们的干预是否符合参与者的解释。结果:系统评价确定了100篇相关文章。 74%的文章中没有保真度的报告;定性研究中的参与者(42)包括:15位作者,12位消费者,11位期刊编辑和4位报告准则作者。其中28位是临床医生。报告QI非常困难,因为:QI是一个新兴领域;医院和期刊的特点造成了报道的压力;上下文很难描述;讨论和结论:QI是一个年轻的领域,但是利益相关者对QI报告抱有良好的发展愿望。随着该领域的成熟,参与QI报告的人员将在描述上下文,识别有效成分以及认识到如何在实践中使用QI出版物方面具有重要价值。这项研究与国际受众相关,可以帮助激发人们对报告的重新认识。

著录项

  • 作者

    Jones, Emma Leanne;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2017
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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