质量改进报告批判性评估指南。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Colby Day , Jeffrey Meyers , Heather C. Kaplan
{"title":"质量改进报告批判性评估指南。","authors":"Colby Day ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Meyers ,&nbsp;Heather C. Kaplan","doi":"10.1016/j.semperi.2024.151900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of healthcare. Despite efforts to improve the reporting of QI through frameworks such as the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, there is no standard or well-accepted guide to evaluate published QI for rigor, validity, generalizability, and applicability. User's Guides for evaluation of published clinical research have been employed routinely for over 25 years; however, similar tools for critical appraisal of QI are limited and uncommonly used. In this article we propose an approach to guide the critical review of QI reports focused on evaluating the methodology, improvement results, and applicability and feasibility for implementation in other settings. The resulting Quality Improvement Critical Knowledge (QUICK) Tool can be used by those reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication, as well as healthcare providers seeking to understand how to apply published QI to their local context.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21761,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in perinatology","volume":"48 3","pages":"Article 151900"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A guide to critical appraisal of quality improvement reports\",\"authors\":\"Colby Day ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Meyers ,&nbsp;Heather C. Kaplan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.semperi.2024.151900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of healthcare. Despite efforts to improve the reporting of QI through frameworks such as the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, there is no standard or well-accepted guide to evaluate published QI for rigor, validity, generalizability, and applicability. User's Guides for evaluation of published clinical research have been employed routinely for over 25 years; however, similar tools for critical appraisal of QI are limited and uncommonly used. In this article we propose an approach to guide the critical review of QI reports focused on evaluating the methodology, improvement results, and applicability and feasibility for implementation in other settings. The resulting Quality Improvement Critical Knowledge (QUICK) Tool can be used by those reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication, as well as healthcare providers seeking to understand how to apply published QI to their local context.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in perinatology\",\"volume\":\"48 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 151900\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in perinatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146000524000260\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146000524000260","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

质量改进(QI)已成为医疗保健不可或缺的一部分。尽管人们努力通过 SQUIRE 2.0 指南等框架来改进 QI 报告,但在评估已发表 QI 的严谨性、有效性、普遍性和适用性方面,还没有标准或公认的指南。用于评估已发表临床研究的用户指南已被常规使用超过 25 年;然而,用于批判性评估 QI 的类似工具却很有限,而且很少使用。在本文中,我们提出了一种方法来指导对质量改进报告的批判性评估,重点是评估方法、改进结果以及在其他环境中实施的适用性和可行性。由此产生的 "质量改进关键知识(QUICK)工具 "可供审稿人使用,也可供医疗服务提供者了解如何将已发表的 QI 应用于本地环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A guide to critical appraisal of quality improvement reports

Quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of healthcare. Despite efforts to improve the reporting of QI through frameworks such as the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, there is no standard or well-accepted guide to evaluate published QI for rigor, validity, generalizability, and applicability. User's Guides for evaluation of published clinical research have been employed routinely for over 25 years; however, similar tools for critical appraisal of QI are limited and uncommonly used. In this article we propose an approach to guide the critical review of QI reports focused on evaluating the methodology, improvement results, and applicability and feasibility for implementation in other settings. The resulting Quality Improvement Critical Knowledge (QUICK) Tool can be used by those reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication, as well as healthcare providers seeking to understand how to apply published QI to their local context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Seminars in perinatology
Seminars in perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
97
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of each issue of Seminars in Perinatology is to provide authoritative and comprehensive reviews of a single topic of interest to professionals who care for the mother, the fetus, and the newborn. The journal''s readership includes perinatologists, obstetricians, pediatricians, epidemiologists, students in these fields, and others. Each issue offers a comprehensive review of an individual topic, with emphasis on new developments that will have a direct impact on their practice.
×
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