[Perception of primary care professionals about the frequency with which are carried out «do not do interventions»].

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
J E Calle Urra, A Jimeno Almazán, A Más Castillo, T Ramón Esparza, C Arellano Morata, J J López-Picazo Ferrer
{"title":"[Perception of primary care professionals about the frequency with which are carried out «do not do interventions»].","authors":"J E Calle Urra, A Jimeno Almazán, A Más Castillo, T Ramón Esparza, C Arellano Morata, J J López-Picazo Ferrer","doi":"10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.11.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objetive: </strong>To know the perception of primary care professionals about the frequency with which interventions that should not be done at this level of care are carried out.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Three questionnaires were developed to evaluate 9 interventions in family medicine, 2 in pediatrics and 6 in nursing. The percentage of professionals who stated that they always or almost always carried out these interventions was calculated, considering acceptable percentages of less than 5%. A descriptive analysis of the barriers identified to reduce these interventions was also carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five of the 9 interventions evaluated in family medicine, 2 in pediatrics, and 4 of the 6 in nursing were always or almost always performed by 5% or more of the professionals. Among the barriers identified to stop doing unnecessary interventions, the first was lack of time in the consultation, followed by lack of training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results obtained have made it possible to identify which of the primary care interventions evaluated have the greatest room for improvement, as well as the main barriers to their deimplementation. Surveys of professionals make it possible to assess recommendations that cannot be measured from clinical records. Knowing their perception of their clinical practice can be very useful for designing the intervention plan.</p>","PeriodicalId":37347,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.11.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objetive: To know the perception of primary care professionals about the frequency with which interventions that should not be done at this level of care are carried out.

Material and methods: Three questionnaires were developed to evaluate 9 interventions in family medicine, 2 in pediatrics and 6 in nursing. The percentage of professionals who stated that they always or almost always carried out these interventions was calculated, considering acceptable percentages of less than 5%. A descriptive analysis of the barriers identified to reduce these interventions was also carried out.

Results: Five of the 9 interventions evaluated in family medicine, 2 in pediatrics, and 4 of the 6 in nursing were always or almost always performed by 5% or more of the professionals. Among the barriers identified to stop doing unnecessary interventions, the first was lack of time in the consultation, followed by lack of training.

Conclusions: The results obtained have made it possible to identify which of the primary care interventions evaluated have the greatest room for improvement, as well as the main barriers to their deimplementation. Surveys of professionals make it possible to assess recommendations that cannot be measured from clinical records. Knowing their perception of their clinical practice can be very useful for designing the intervention plan.

[初级保健专业人员对进行“不干预”的频率的看法]。
目的:了解初级保健专业人员对不应在这一级护理中进行干预的频率的看法。材料与方法:采用3份问卷对9项家庭医学干预措施、2项儿科干预措施和6项护理干预措施进行评价。考虑到可接受的小于5%的百分比,计算了表示他们总是或几乎总是执行这些干预措施的专业人员的百分比。还对确定的减少这些干预措施的障碍进行了描述性分析。结果:家庭医学9项干预措施中有5项,儿科2项,护理6项干预措施中有4项总是或几乎总是由5%或更多的专业人员实施。在确定的停止进行不必要干预的障碍中,首先是咨询时间不足,其次是缺乏培训。结论:所获得的结果使我们能够确定哪些初级保健干预措施有最大的改进空间,以及其取消实施的主要障碍。对专业人员的调查使评估无法从临床记录中衡量的建议成为可能。了解他们对临床实践的看法对设计干预计划非常有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
83
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Revista de Calidad Asistencial (Quality Healthcare) (RCA) is the official Journal of the Spanish Society of Quality Healthcare (Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial) (SECA) and is a tool for the dissemination of knowledge and reflection for the quality management of health services in Primary Care, as well as in Hospitals. It publishes articles associated with any aspect of research in the field of public health and health administration, including health education, epidemiology, medical statistics, health information, health economics, quality management, and health policies. The Journal publishes 6 issues, exclusively in electronic format. The Journal publishes, in Spanish, Original works, Special and Review Articles, as well as other sections. Articles are subjected to a rigorous, double blind, review process (peer review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信