Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes
Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/qhc.11.2.125
复制
发表时间：
2002-06-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Roland, MO
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Campbell, SM;Hann, M;Roland, MO
目的：实地检验专家小组制定的心绞痛、哮喘和2型糖尿病评价标准的信度、效度和可接受性，这些标准采用系统的过程将证据与专家意见相结合。设计：对来自临床审计、邮寄问卷和半结构化访谈的数据进行统计分析，这些数据来自英国全科医生和执业护士的代表性样本。背景：英国的60个全科医生。主要结局指标：心绞痛、哮喘和2型糖尿病的临床审计结果。邮寄问卷的全科医生和执业护士效度评分。结果：专家组对心绞痛、哮喘和2型糖尿病分别评价为有效的相关标准中，有54%、59%和70%被认为是可用的、有效的、可靠的和可接受的，可用于评估护理质量。全科医生和执业护士同意小组成员的意见，认为这些标准是有效的，但不应该总是记录在病历中。结论：使用专家小组得出的质量措施需要现场测试，才能被认为是有效的、可靠的、可接受的，可用于质量评估。这些发现提供了额外的证据，表明RAND小组方法为评估临床护理质量制定了有效和可靠的审查标准。
Objectives: To field test the reliability, validity, and acceptability of review criteria for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes which had been developed by expert panels using a systematic process to combine evidence with expert opinion.Design: Statistical analysis of data derived from a clinical audit, and postal questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and practice nurses in a representative sample of general practices in England.Setting: 60 general practices in England.Main outcome measures: Clinical audit results for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes. General practitioner and practice nurse validity ratings from the postal questionnaire.Results: 54%, 59%, and 70% of relevant criteria rated valid by the expert panels for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes, respectively, were found to be usable, valid, reliable, and acceptable for assessing quality of care. General practitioners and practice nurses agreed with panellists that these criteria were valid but not that they should always be recorded in the medical record.Conclusion: Quality measures derived using expert panels need field testing before they can be considered valid, reliable, and acceptable for use in quality assessment. These findings provide additional evidence that the RAND panel method develops valid and reliable review criteria for assessing clinical quality of care.