Salvador González-Rodríguez, Rodolfo Rivas-Ruiz, Carmen Josephine Espinosa-Rafful, Mónica Alejandra Montano-López, Alfredo Robles-Rodríguez, Rosana Pelayo-Camacho, Laura Cecilia Bonifaz-Alfonzo, Luisa Alejandra Guadalupe Obrador-Garrido Cuesta
{"title":"[ICT in the evaluation of the quality of medical care].","authors":"Salvador González-Rodríguez, Rodolfo Rivas-Ruiz, Carmen Josephine Espinosa-Rafful, Mónica Alejandra Montano-López, Alfredo Robles-Rodríguez, Rosana Pelayo-Camacho, Laura Cecilia Bonifaz-Alfonzo, Luisa Alejandra Guadalupe Obrador-Garrido Cuesta","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.14901762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Virtual Verification Application (VVA) was developed as an information and communication technology with the potential to support the formative aspect of evaluation, reduce costs, improve productivity, and provide results and feedback immediately.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the performance of the VVA in an experimental and controlled environment in the evaluation of processes and medical programs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A process study was conducted comparing the VVA in four controlled clinical environments: Outpatient Consultation, Emergency, Operating Room, and Hospitalization, within the Simulation Center, modifying the conditions of each scenario. Additionally, the results of virtual (VV) and in-person (IP) evaluations conducted by both experts and novices in each environment and scenario were compared. The Bland-Altman method was used, and median differences were evaluated. The costs of both evaluations were also compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant differences were found between scenarios (p = 0.795) or by experience (p = 0.819). In the Outpatient Consultation scenario, the difference was 0.58% (95% CI: -2.45, 1.29%); in Emergency, -0.9% (95% CI: -2.84, 1.04%); in the Operating Room, 0.19% (95% CI: -1.98, 2.36%); and in Hospitalization, there was no difference (0%, 95% CI: -7.37, 7.37%). The cost of the IP was 9.3 times higher than that of the VV.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VVA and the IP evaluations have similar performance, with a significant reduction in costs. Therefore, it is a useful tool for evaluation and for improving the quality of medical care.</p>","PeriodicalId":94200,"journal":{"name":"Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social","volume":"63 2","pages":"e6209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12048168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14901762","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The Virtual Verification Application (VVA) was developed as an information and communication technology with the potential to support the formative aspect of evaluation, reduce costs, improve productivity, and provide results and feedback immediately.
Objective: To determine the performance of the VVA in an experimental and controlled environment in the evaluation of processes and medical programs.
Materials and methods: A process study was conducted comparing the VVA in four controlled clinical environments: Outpatient Consultation, Emergency, Operating Room, and Hospitalization, within the Simulation Center, modifying the conditions of each scenario. Additionally, the results of virtual (VV) and in-person (IP) evaluations conducted by both experts and novices in each environment and scenario were compared. The Bland-Altman method was used, and median differences were evaluated. The costs of both evaluations were also compared.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found between scenarios (p = 0.795) or by experience (p = 0.819). In the Outpatient Consultation scenario, the difference was 0.58% (95% CI: -2.45, 1.29%); in Emergency, -0.9% (95% CI: -2.84, 1.04%); in the Operating Room, 0.19% (95% CI: -1.98, 2.36%); and in Hospitalization, there was no difference (0%, 95% CI: -7.37, 7.37%). The cost of the IP was 9.3 times higher than that of the VV.
Conclusions: The VVA and the IP evaluations have similar performance, with a significant reduction in costs. Therefore, it is a useful tool for evaluation and for improving the quality of medical care.