验证巴勒斯坦急诊科的质量标准:e-Delphi调查方法。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-01-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0307632
Abed Alr'oof Bani Odeh, Lee Wallis, Motasem Hamdan, Willem Stassen
{"title":"验证巴勒斯坦急诊科的质量标准:e-Delphi调查方法。","authors":"Abed Alr'oof Bani Odeh, Lee Wallis, Motasem Hamdan, Willem Stassen","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0307632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To validate Palestine's previously derived emergency department quality standards (EDQS) using an e-Delphi survey. A two-round e-Delphi survey validated the EDQS, developed in an earlier study through a literature review and consensus-building among Palestinian emergency medicine and healthcare quality experts. The study purposively sampled 53 emergency department and healthcare quality experts with over 5 years of experience. A Likert scale was used to rate the standards on readability, clarity, and comprehensiveness in the initial round to reach consensus on the EDQS, with detailed feedback. An expanded expert group refined the shortlisted standards in the next phase. Lime Survey collected data anonymously. A set of 100 EDQS was validated through a two-round e-Delphi survey. In the initial round, 103 standards were presented, and consensus was achieved, resulting in a refined list of 100 standards. Among these, 39 standards fell under the clinical pathway domain, and 61 under the administrative pathway domain. In the second round, the validity of these standards was affirmed, with 96.4% consensus for clinical standards and 97.3% for administrative standards. Additionally, seven subdomains of EDQS were associated with the clinical pathway domain: triage, treatment, transportation, medication safety, patient flow, and medical diagnostic services, and nine subdomains were linked to the administration pathway domain: documentation, information management systems, access-location, design, leadership, management, workforce staffing, training, equipment, supplies, capacity-resuscitation rooms, resources for a safe working environment, performance indicators, and patient safety-infection prevention and control programs. The study validated context emergency department quality standards in Palestine, with over 97% consensus indicating a commitment to quality care. Experts suggest further research on implementation feasibility. Validated standards can aid healthcare leaders in resource allocation, staff training, and enhancing patient care, potentially leading to significant improvements in emergency healthcare in Palestine.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 1","pages":"e0307632"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723523/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.\",\"authors\":\"Abed Alr'oof Bani Odeh, Lee Wallis, Motasem Hamdan, Willem Stassen\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0307632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To validate Palestine's previously derived emergency department quality standards (EDQS) using an e-Delphi survey. A two-round e-Delphi survey validated the EDQS, developed in an earlier study through a literature review and consensus-building among Palestinian emergency medicine and healthcare quality experts. The study purposively sampled 53 emergency department and healthcare quality experts with over 5 years of experience. A Likert scale was used to rate the standards on readability, clarity, and comprehensiveness in the initial round to reach consensus on the EDQS, with detailed feedback. An expanded expert group refined the shortlisted standards in the next phase. Lime Survey collected data anonymously. A set of 100 EDQS was validated through a two-round e-Delphi survey. In the initial round, 103 standards were presented, and consensus was achieved, resulting in a refined list of 100 standards. Among these, 39 standards fell under the clinical pathway domain, and 61 under the administrative pathway domain. In the second round, the validity of these standards was affirmed, with 96.4% consensus for clinical standards and 97.3% for administrative standards. Additionally, seven subdomains of EDQS were associated with the clinical pathway domain: triage, treatment, transportation, medication safety, patient flow, and medical diagnostic services, and nine subdomains were linked to the administration pathway domain: documentation, information management systems, access-location, design, leadership, management, workforce staffing, training, equipment, supplies, capacity-resuscitation rooms, resources for a safe working environment, performance indicators, and patient safety-infection prevention and control programs. The study validated context emergency department quality standards in Palestine, with over 97% consensus indicating a commitment to quality care. Experts suggest further research on implementation feasibility. Validated standards can aid healthcare leaders in resource allocation, staff training, and enhancing patient care, potentially leading to significant improvements in emergency healthcare in Palestine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"e0307632\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723523/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307632\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307632","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用e-Delphi调查验证巴勒斯坦先前导出的急诊部门质量标准(EDQS)。两轮电子德尔福调查验证了EDQS,该qs是在早期的一项研究中通过文献审查和在巴勒斯坦急诊医学和保健质量专家之间建立共识而制定的。该研究有目的地抽样了53名具有5年以上经验的急诊科和医疗质量专家。在第一轮中使用李克特量表对可读性、清晰度和全面性标准进行评分,以达成EDQS的共识,并提供详细的反馈。扩大后的专家组在下一阶段对入围标准进行了细化。Lime Survey匿名收集数据。通过两轮e-Delphi调查验证了一组100个EDQS。在第一轮谈判中,提出了103项标准,并达成了共识,最终形成了一份包含100项标准的细化清单。其中临床途径领域标准39项,行政途径领域标准61项。在第二轮中,这些标准的有效性得到了肯定,临床标准的一致性为96.4%,行政标准的一致性为97.3%。此外,EDQS的7个子域与临床路径域相关:分诊、治疗、运输、药物安全、患者流程和医疗诊断服务,9个子域与管理路径域相关。文件、信息管理系统、准入地点、设计、领导、管理、劳动力配备、培训、设备、用品、能力复苏室、安全工作环境资源、绩效指标以及患者安全感染预防和控制规划。该研究验证了巴勒斯坦急诊科的质量标准,超过97%的共识表明了对高质量护理的承诺。专家建议进一步研究实施的可行性。经过验证的标准可以帮助医疗保健领导者进行资源分配、员工培训和加强患者护理,从而有可能显著改善巴勒斯坦的紧急医疗保健。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.

Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.

Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.

Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.

To validate Palestine's previously derived emergency department quality standards (EDQS) using an e-Delphi survey. A two-round e-Delphi survey validated the EDQS, developed in an earlier study through a literature review and consensus-building among Palestinian emergency medicine and healthcare quality experts. The study purposively sampled 53 emergency department and healthcare quality experts with over 5 years of experience. A Likert scale was used to rate the standards on readability, clarity, and comprehensiveness in the initial round to reach consensus on the EDQS, with detailed feedback. An expanded expert group refined the shortlisted standards in the next phase. Lime Survey collected data anonymously. A set of 100 EDQS was validated through a two-round e-Delphi survey. In the initial round, 103 standards were presented, and consensus was achieved, resulting in a refined list of 100 standards. Among these, 39 standards fell under the clinical pathway domain, and 61 under the administrative pathway domain. In the second round, the validity of these standards was affirmed, with 96.4% consensus for clinical standards and 97.3% for administrative standards. Additionally, seven subdomains of EDQS were associated with the clinical pathway domain: triage, treatment, transportation, medication safety, patient flow, and medical diagnostic services, and nine subdomains were linked to the administration pathway domain: documentation, information management systems, access-location, design, leadership, management, workforce staffing, training, equipment, supplies, capacity-resuscitation rooms, resources for a safe working environment, performance indicators, and patient safety-infection prevention and control programs. The study validated context emergency department quality standards in Palestine, with over 97% consensus indicating a commitment to quality care. Experts suggest further research on implementation feasibility. Validated standards can aid healthcare leaders in resource allocation, staff training, and enhancing patient care, potentially leading to significant improvements in emergency healthcare in Palestine.

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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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