Construction of an instrument to evaluate the quality of hospital care provided in burns units in Brazil: A Delphi study

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Burns Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2024.107316

Denise R. Rabelo Suzuki , Levy Aniceto Santana , Juliana Elvira H. Guerra Ávila , Fábio Ferreira Amorim , Vinicius Maldaner

{"title":"Construction of an instrument to evaluate the quality of hospital care provided in burns units in Brazil: A Delphi study","authors":"Denise R. Rabelo Suzuki , Levy Aniceto Santana , Juliana Elvira H. Guerra Ávila , Fábio Ferreira Amorim , Vinicius Maldaner","doi":"10.1016/j.burns.2024.107316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Providing excellent care to patients with acute burns can result in lower mortality and disability in the long-term. There are no specific instruments to evaluate the quality of care provided at this stage of treatment. This study aims to create an instrument to evaluate the quality of hospital care provided to patients with acute burns in Brazil.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The Delphi technique was used to obtain a consensus among experts on which constructs should be incorporated into the instrument. The sample comprised professionals experienced in treating burn victims and subscribed to the Brazilian Society of Burns mailing lists. Each statement was judged on a 5-point Likert scale. A percentage of agreement equal to or higher than 75 % was defined as a consensus. Data were analyzed using content analysis and descriptive summary statistics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The first round obtained responses from 34 experts, with a mean of 11.98 (SD 9.29) years of experience. After three rounds, 106 statements reached consensus for inclusion and served as the basis for the instrument.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Our study identified key terms, and consensus was reached on 106 statements; a need to define clear outcome evaluation methods was observed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50717,"journal":{"name":"Burns","volume":"51 1","pages":"Article 107316"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Burns","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417924003565","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Providing excellent care to patients with acute burns can result in lower mortality and disability in the long-term. There are no specific instruments to evaluate the quality of care provided at this stage of treatment. This study aims to create an instrument to evaluate the quality of hospital care provided to patients with acute burns in Brazil.

Methods

The Delphi technique was used to obtain a consensus among experts on which constructs should be incorporated into the instrument. The sample comprised professionals experienced in treating burn victims and subscribed to the Brazilian Society of Burns mailing lists. Each statement was judged on a 5-point Likert scale. A percentage of agreement equal to or higher than 75 % was defined as a consensus. Data were analyzed using content analysis and descriptive summary statistics.

Results

The first round obtained responses from 34 experts, with a mean of 11.98 (SD 9.29) years of experience. After three rounds, 106 statements reached consensus for inclusion and served as the basis for the instrument.

Conclusion

Our study identified key terms, and consensus was reached on 106 statements; a need to define clear outcome evaluation methods was observed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

构建一种评估巴西烧伤医院护理质量的仪器：德尔菲研究。

背景：对急性烧伤患者提供良好的护理可以降低长期死亡率和致残率。目前还没有具体的工具来评估在这一治疗阶段提供的护理质量。本研究旨在创建一个工具，以评估医院护理质量提供给急性烧伤患者在巴西。方法：采用德尔菲技术，在专家中获得应纳入仪器的共识。样本包括治疗烧伤患者经验丰富的专业人员，并订阅了巴西烧伤协会的邮件列表。每个陈述都以5分的李克特量表进行评判。同意的百分比等于或高于75%被定义为共识。数据分析采用内容分析和描述性汇总统计。结果：第一轮获得34位专家的回复，平均经验11.98 （SD 9.29）年。经过三轮谈判，106份声明达成协商一致意见，作为文书的基础。结论：我们的研究确定了关键术语，并在106条表述中达成共识；有必要确定明确的结果评价方法。

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

Burns 医学-皮肤病学

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

18.50%

发文量

304

审稿时长

72 days

期刊介绍： Burns aims to foster the exchange of information among all engaged in preventing and treating the effects of burns. The journal focuses on clinical, scientific and social aspects of these injuries and covers the prevention of the injury, the epidemiology of such injuries and all aspects of treatment including development of new techniques and technologies and verification of existing ones. Regular features include clinical and scientific papers, state of the art reviews and descriptions of burn-care in practice. Topics covered by Burns include: the effects of smoke on man and animals, their tissues and cells; the responses to and treatment of patients and animals with chemical injuries to the skin; the biological and clinical effects of cold injuries; surgical techniques which are, or may be relevant to the treatment of burned patients during the acute or reconstructive phase following injury; well controlled laboratory studies of the effectiveness of anti-microbial agents on infection and new materials on scarring and healing; inflammatory responses to injury, effectiveness of related agents and other compounds used to modify the physiological and cellular responses to the injury; experimental studies of burns and the outcome of burn wound healing; regenerative medicine concerning the skin.