4.2 Article

Interhospital variation in appropriateness of cataract surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 188-195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01421.x

关键词

appropriateness; cataract surgery; health services research; ophthalmology; practice variation; RAND; UCLA

资金

  1. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria of the Spanish Ministry of Health [PI03/0550, PI03/0724, PI03/0471, PI03/0828, PI04/1577]
  2. Department of Health of the Basque Country
  3. thematic networks - Red IRYSS - of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministry of Health, Spain [G03/220]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to analyse the inter-hospital variation in the appropriateness of cataract phacoemulsification in Spain. Methods This observational, multicentre, prospective study involved patients aged 18-90 years. Each phacoemulsification intervention was classified as 'necessary', 'appropriate', 'uncertain' or 'inappropriate' according to explicit appropriateness criteria previously established using the RAND/UCLA methodology. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed, followed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, in order to examine the differences between hospitals. Results In total, 5063 patients from 15 hospitals were enrolled. The percentage of patients in each hospital who inappropriately underwent phacoemulsification varied from 1.2% to 24.0% (P < 0.0001). The most common inappropriate scenario was that of patients with a simple, unilateral cataract with no limitation of their visual function, with a pre-surgery visual acuity of >= 0.5 in both eyes, and for whom surgical correction would involve low technical complexity. Conclusions The variation in appropriateness of phacoemulsification cannot be attributed solely to the clinical differences between the hospitals' patients. There is room for improvement in the appropriate indication of phacoemulsification. Measures based on the dissemination of appropriateness criteria might improve quality of care.

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

4.2
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