Develop a validated anesthesia quality assessment to evaluate patients postoperatively

Somchai Amornyotin., S. Parakkamodom, P. Vichitvejpaisal, Papiroon Noitasaeng, S. Udompunturak
{"title":"Develop a validated anesthesia quality assessment to evaluate patients postoperatively","authors":"Somchai Amornyotin., S. Parakkamodom, P. Vichitvejpaisal, Papiroon Noitasaeng, S. Udompunturak","doi":"10.26226/morressier.5aeb0acc07b0d6001a79ac56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The study is aimed to develop a well-validated anesthesia quality assessment to evaluate patients postoperatively. Materials and Methods: After securing Institutional Review Board approval, the study was registered via ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 0307996). The Siriraj Anesthesia Quality Assessment Questionnaire was developed and validated under the conceptual/theoretical framework of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Service Quality Questionnaire and Quality of Recover after Anesthesia. A total of 476 qualified responses with obtained consent were included in the study to verify the appropriateness of the tool. Results: The study involved 397 qualified patients (83.4%), aged 47.6±16.6, representing all anesthesia services. Significantly, a binary logistic regression revealed the predicted dependent variables as Process of Care (4.39±0.51) and Physical Support (4.35±0.66) in comparison with a sequence of Accessibility and Convenience (4.33±0.56), Communication and Information (4.00±0.70), Technical Quality (4.46±0.45) Psychological Support (4.57±0.65) and Loyalty (4.52±0.68) in anesthesia quality assessment. Conclusion: Process of Care and Physical Support appeared to be significantly valued features, whereas Communication and Information, Accessibility and Convenience, Technical Quality and Psychological Support were found to be weak points in anesthesia quality assessment.","PeriodicalId":14916,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia & Critical Care: Open Access","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia & Critical Care: Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26226/morressier.5aeb0acc07b0d6001a79ac56","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

Objective: The study is aimed to develop a well-validated anesthesia quality assessment to evaluate patients postoperatively. Materials and Methods: After securing Institutional Review Board approval, the study was registered via ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 0307996). The Siriraj Anesthesia Quality Assessment Questionnaire was developed and validated under the conceptual/theoretical framework of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Service Quality Questionnaire and Quality of Recover after Anesthesia. A total of 476 qualified responses with obtained consent were included in the study to verify the appropriateness of the tool. Results: The study involved 397 qualified patients (83.4%), aged 47.6±16.6, representing all anesthesia services. Significantly, a binary logistic regression revealed the predicted dependent variables as Process of Care (4.39±0.51) and Physical Support (4.35±0.66) in comparison with a sequence of Accessibility and Convenience (4.33±0.56), Communication and Information (4.00±0.70), Technical Quality (4.46±0.45) Psychological Support (4.57±0.65) and Loyalty (4.52±0.68) in anesthesia quality assessment. Conclusion: Process of Care and Physical Support appeared to be significantly valued features, whereas Communication and Information, Accessibility and Convenience, Technical Quality and Psychological Support were found to be weak points in anesthesia quality assessment.
制定有效的麻醉质量评估,以评估术后患者
目的:本研究旨在建立一种有效的麻醉质量评估方法来评估术后患者的麻醉质量。材料和方法:在获得机构审查委员会批准后,该研究通过ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 0307996)注册。Siriraj麻醉质量评估问卷是在马斯洛需求层次、医院消费者对医疗服务提供者和系统的评估、患者满意度问卷、服务质量问卷和麻醉后恢复质量的概念/理论框架下开发和验证的。共有476份获得同意的合格回复被纳入研究,以验证该工具的适当性。结果:研究纳入397例符合条件的患者(83.4%),年龄47.6±16.6岁,代表所有麻醉服务。二值logistic回归分析显示,麻醉质量评价的预测因变量为护理过程(4.39±0.51)和身体支持(4.35±0.66),可及性和便利性(4.33±0.56)、沟通和信息(4.00±0.70)、技术质量(4.46±0.45)、心理支持(4.57±0.65)和忠诚度(4.52±0.68)。结论:护理过程和物理支持是麻醉质量评价的重要特征,而沟通与信息、可及性与便利性、技术质量和心理支持是麻醉质量评价的薄弱环节。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书