4.6 Article

An International prevalence measurement of care problems: study protocol

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 69, 期 9, 页码 E18-E29

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12190

关键词

care problems; falls; incontinence; malnutrition; nursing; pressure ulcers; prevalence measurement; restraints

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. The aim of this article was to describe the design of an international audit of the prevalence of care problems in different healthcare sectors using identical methodologies. Background. Audits, defined as a monitor of quality of health care, are increasingly applied in many countries as a strategy to improve professional practice and quality and safety of care. A prerequisite to enable a reliable comparison of quality of care audits is the use of identical instruments and methodology. Design. Annual cross-sectional multi-centre point prevalence survey. Method. This international prevalence measurement of care problems in hospitals, care homes and home care is performed in the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and New Zealand. This study is based on a prevalence measurement of care problems originally performed in the Netherlands. For each care problem (pressure ulcer, incontinence, malnutrition, falls and restraints) at patient level, next to patient characteristics, data are gathered about the prevalence, prevention and treatment of each care problem. In addition, at ward/department and institution level, specific quality indicators are measured related to the care problems. After the measurement, institutions enter their data into a web-based data-entry program. Institutions receive an overview of their own results and results at national level to enable a process of benchmarking. Discussion. A uniform way of measuring the prevalence of care problems internationally is a significant step forward in gaining insight into the quality of basic care in different healthcare settings in different countries and may lead to more awareness and improvement programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据