4.6 Article

Effect of Physician Delegation to Other Healthcare Providers on the Quality of Care for Geriatric Conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 63, 期 10, 页码 2164-2170

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.13654

关键词

geriatrics; quality of health care; geriatric health services; personnel delegation

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG028748, 5P30AG028748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quality of care of older adults in the United States has been consistently shown to be inadequate. This gap between recommended and actual care provides an opportunity to improve the value of health care for older adults. Prior work from the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) investigators first defined, and then sought to improve, clinical practice for common geriatric conditions. A critical component of the ACOVE intervention for practice improvement was an emphasis on the delegation of specific care processes, but the independent effect of delegation on the quality of care has not been evaluated. This study analyzed the pooled results of prior ACOVE projects from 1998 to 2010. Totaled, these studies included 4,776 individuals aged 65 and older of mixed demographic backgrounds and 16,204 ACOVE quality indicators (QIs) for three geriatric conditions: falls, urinary incontinence, and dementia. In unadjusted analyses, QI pass probabilities were 0.36 for physician-performed tasks, 0.55 for nurse practitioner (NP)-, physician assistant (PA)-, and registered nurse (RN)-performed tasks; and 0.61 for medical assistant- and licensed vocational nurse-performed tasks. In multiply adjusted models, the independent pass-probability effect of delegation to NPs, PAs, and RNs was 1.37 (P = .05). These findings suggest that delegation of selected tasks to nonphysician healthcare providers is associated with higher quality of care for these geriatric conditions in community practices and supports the value of interdisciplinary team management for common outpatient conditions in older adults.

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