支持基层医疗团队的高级访问反思工具:在线问卷的开发与验证。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Isabelle Gaboury, Mylaine Breton, Christine Beaulieu, Marianne Renard, Maxime Sasseville, Lara Maillet, Catherine Hudon, Isabel Rodrigues, Sabina Abou Malham, Arnaud Duhoux, Jeannie Haggerty
{"title":"支持基层医疗团队的高级访问反思工具:在线问卷的开发与验证。","authors":"Isabelle Gaboury, Mylaine Breton, Christine Beaulieu, Marianne Renard, Maxime Sasseville, Lara Maillet, Catherine Hudon, Isabel Rodrigues, Sabina Abou Malham, Arnaud Duhoux, Jeannie Haggerty","doi":"10.1111/jep.14232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Awareness of their standing relative to best practices motivates primary healthcare (PHC) teams to improve their practices. However, gathering the data necessary to create such a portrait is a challenge. An effective way to support the improvement of the practices of PHC teams is to simplify the availability of data portraying aspects of their practices that might need improvement. Timely access is one of the foremost challenges of PHC. Yet, very few tools supporting reflections on the implementation of best practices to improve access are available to PHC teams.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To develop an online reflective tool that evaluates the state of a PHC team member's advanced access practice and formulates customized recommendations for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This sequential multimethod study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel composed of researchers, patients, provincial and local decision-makers, and PHC clinical and administrative staff in the province of Quebec, Canada. Consensus was reached on the content of the questionnaire and the prioritization of the recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No reflective tool on advanced access practices was found in the literature review. Grey literature was used to create an initial version of the questionnaire. This version was revised and enriched through consultation phases with the expert panel. Then, five iterations of the tool were tested with 169 PHC team members, which led to the conception of two distinct versions: one for clinical staff and one for administrative agents responsible for appointment booking. The final versions of the reflective tool are available online in both English and French.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This reflective tool provides a portrait of PHC team members' advanced access practices as well as an automated report that contains personalized and prioritized recommendations for improvement. Further developments are necessary for its optimal use among PHC professionals other than physicians and nurse practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflective Tool on Advanced Access to Support Primary Healthcare Teams: Development and Validation of an Online Questionnaire.\",\"authors\":\"Isabelle Gaboury, Mylaine Breton, Christine Beaulieu, Marianne Renard, Maxime Sasseville, Lara Maillet, Catherine Hudon, Isabel Rodrigues, Sabina Abou Malham, Arnaud Duhoux, Jeannie Haggerty\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Awareness of their standing relative to best practices motivates primary healthcare (PHC) teams to improve their practices. However, gathering the data necessary to create such a portrait is a challenge. An effective way to support the improvement of the practices of PHC teams is to simplify the availability of data portraying aspects of their practices that might need improvement. Timely access is one of the foremost challenges of PHC. Yet, very few tools supporting reflections on the implementation of best practices to improve access are available to PHC teams.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To develop an online reflective tool that evaluates the state of a PHC team member's advanced access practice and formulates customized recommendations for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This sequential multimethod study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel composed of researchers, patients, provincial and local decision-makers, and PHC clinical and administrative staff in the province of Quebec, Canada. Consensus was reached on the content of the questionnaire and the prioritization of the recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No reflective tool on advanced access practices was found in the literature review. Grey literature was used to create an initial version of the questionnaire. This version was revised and enriched through consultation phases with the expert panel. Then, five iterations of the tool were tested with 169 PHC team members, which led to the conception of two distinct versions: one for clinical staff and one for administrative agents responsible for appointment booking. The final versions of the reflective tool are available online in both English and French.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This reflective tool provides a portrait of PHC team members' advanced access practices as well as an automated report that contains personalized and prioritized recommendations for improvement. Further developments are necessary for its optimal use among PHC professionals other than physicians and nurse practitioners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14232\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14232","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:了解自己在最佳实践中的地位,可以激励初级医疗保健 (PHC) 团队改进其实践。然而,收集必要的数据来绘制这样一幅肖像是一项挑战。支持初级医疗保健团队改进工作的一个有效方法是简化数据的提供,描述其工作中可能需要改进的方面。及时获取数据是初级保健的首要挑战之一。然而,支持初级保健团队反思如何实施最佳做法以改善就医情况的工具却寥寥无几:开发一种在线反思工具,用于评估初级保健团队成员的先进就医实践状况,并为其量身定制改进建议:这项循序渐进的多方法研究参考了文献综述以及由加拿大魁北克省研究人员、患者、省级和地方决策者以及初级保健中心临床和行政人员组成的专家小组。研究人员就调查问卷的内容和建议的优先次序达成了共识:结果:在文献综述中未发现有关先进就医实践的反思工具。灰色文献被用来制作问卷的初始版本。通过与专家小组的磋商,对该版本进行了修订和充实。然后,169 名初级保健小组成员对该工具进行了五次反复测试,最终形成了两个不同的版本:一个适用于临床工作人员,另一个适用于负责预约的行政人员。反思工具的最终版本以英文和法文在网上发布:这一反思工具提供了初级保健团队成员的先进就医方法,以及一份包含个性化和优先化改进建议的自动报告。要想在医生和执业护士以外的初级保健专业人员中得到最佳应用,还需要进一步开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reflective Tool on Advanced Access to Support Primary Healthcare Teams: Development and Validation of an Online Questionnaire.

Rationale: Awareness of their standing relative to best practices motivates primary healthcare (PHC) teams to improve their practices. However, gathering the data necessary to create such a portrait is a challenge. An effective way to support the improvement of the practices of PHC teams is to simplify the availability of data portraying aspects of their practices that might need improvement. Timely access is one of the foremost challenges of PHC. Yet, very few tools supporting reflections on the implementation of best practices to improve access are available to PHC teams.

Aims and objectives: To develop an online reflective tool that evaluates the state of a PHC team member's advanced access practice and formulates customized recommendations for improvement.

Methods: This sequential multimethod study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel composed of researchers, patients, provincial and local decision-makers, and PHC clinical and administrative staff in the province of Quebec, Canada. Consensus was reached on the content of the questionnaire and the prioritization of the recommendations.

Results: No reflective tool on advanced access practices was found in the literature review. Grey literature was used to create an initial version of the questionnaire. This version was revised and enriched through consultation phases with the expert panel. Then, five iterations of the tool were tested with 169 PHC team members, which led to the conception of two distinct versions: one for clinical staff and one for administrative agents responsible for appointment booking. The final versions of the reflective tool are available online in both English and French.

Conclusion: This reflective tool provides a portrait of PHC team members' advanced access practices as well as an automated report that contains personalized and prioritized recommendations for improvement. Further developments are necessary for its optimal use among PHC professionals other than physicians and nurse practitioners.

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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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