通过使用基于知识的分诊工具审查临床医生,对肌肉骨骼初级保健转诊进行分诊的一致性和一致性。

F M Shorthouse, N Griffin, C McNicholas, N Spahr, G Jones
{"title":"通过使用基于知识的分诊工具审查临床医生,对肌肉骨骼初级保健转诊进行分诊的一致性和一致性。","authors":"F M Shorthouse, N Griffin, C McNicholas, N Spahr, G Jones","doi":"10.1017/S1463423623000361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary care referrals received by secondary care services are vetted or triaged to pathways best suited for patients' needs. If knowledge-based triaging is used by vetting clinicians, accuracy is required to avoid incorrect decisions being made. With limited evidence to support best practice, we aimed to evaluate consistency across vetting clinicians' decisions and their agreement with a criterion decision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-nine trained vetting clinicians (18 female) representative of pay grades independently triaged five musculoskeletal physiotherapy referral cases into one of 10 decisions using an internally developed triage tool. Agreement across clinicians' decisions between and within cases was assessed using Fleiss's kappa overall and within pay grade. Proportions of triage decisions consistent with criterion decisions were assessed using Cochran's <i>Q</i> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinician agreement was fair for all cases (<i>κ</i> = 0.385) irrespective of pay grade but varied within clinical cases (<i>κ</i> = -0.014-0.786). Proportions of correct triage decisions were significantly different across cases [<i>Q</i>(4) = 33.80, <i>P</i> < 0.001] ranging from 17% to 83%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Agreement and consistency in decisions were variable using the tool. Ensuring referrer information is accurate is vital, as is developing, automating and auditing standards for certain referrals with clear pathways. But we argue that variable vetting outcomes might represent healthy pathway abundance and should not simply be automated in response to perceived inefficiencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"24 ","pages":"e63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790367/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement and consistency in the triaging of musculoskeletal primary care referrals by vetting clinicians using a knowledge-based triage tool.\",\"authors\":\"F M Shorthouse, N Griffin, C McNicholas, N Spahr, G Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1463423623000361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary care referrals received by secondary care services are vetted or triaged to pathways best suited for patients' needs. If knowledge-based triaging is used by vetting clinicians, accuracy is required to avoid incorrect decisions being made. With limited evidence to support best practice, we aimed to evaluate consistency across vetting clinicians' decisions and their agreement with a criterion decision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-nine trained vetting clinicians (18 female) representative of pay grades independently triaged five musculoskeletal physiotherapy referral cases into one of 10 decisions using an internally developed triage tool. Agreement across clinicians' decisions between and within cases was assessed using Fleiss's kappa overall and within pay grade. Proportions of triage decisions consistent with criterion decisions were assessed using Cochran's <i>Q</i> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinician agreement was fair for all cases (<i>κ</i> = 0.385) irrespective of pay grade but varied within clinical cases (<i>κ</i> = -0.014-0.786). Proportions of correct triage decisions were significantly different across cases [<i>Q</i>(4) = 33.80, <i>P</i> < 0.001] ranging from 17% to 83%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Agreement and consistency in decisions were variable using the tool. Ensuring referrer information is accurate is vital, as is developing, automating and auditing standards for certain referrals with clear pathways. But we argue that variable vetting outcomes might represent healthy pathway abundance and should not simply be automated in response to perceived inefficiencies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary health care research & development\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"e63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790367/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary health care research & development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000361\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:二级护理服务机构收到的初级护理转诊经过审查或分诊,选择最适合患者需求的途径。如果审查临床医生使用基于知识的试验,则需要准确性以避免做出错误的决定。由于支持最佳实践的证据有限,我们旨在评估审查临床医生决策的一致性以及他们对标准决策的同意程度。方法:29名受过培训的审查临床医生(18名女性)代表薪酬级别,使用内部开发的分诊工具,将5例肌肉骨骼理疗转诊病例独立分诊为10个决定之一。使用Fleiss的kappa评估了临床医生在病例之间和病例内的决策一致性。使用Cochran Q检验评估与标准决定一致的分诊决定的比例。结果:无论工资等级如何,临床医生对所有病例的一致性都是公平的(κ=0.385),但在临床病例中各不相同(κ=-0.014-0.786)。不同病例的正确分诊决策比例有显著差异[Q(4)=33.80,P<0.001],从17%到83%不等。结论:使用该工具,决策的一致性和一致性是可变的。确保推荐人信息的准确性至关重要,为某些有明确途径的推荐人制定、自动化和审计标准也是如此。但我们认为,可变的审查结果可能代表着健康的途径丰富性,不应该简单地对感知到的低效率进行自动化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Agreement and consistency in the triaging of musculoskeletal primary care referrals by vetting clinicians using a knowledge-based triage tool.

Background: Primary care referrals received by secondary care services are vetted or triaged to pathways best suited for patients' needs. If knowledge-based triaging is used by vetting clinicians, accuracy is required to avoid incorrect decisions being made. With limited evidence to support best practice, we aimed to evaluate consistency across vetting clinicians' decisions and their agreement with a criterion decision.

Methods: Twenty-nine trained vetting clinicians (18 female) representative of pay grades independently triaged five musculoskeletal physiotherapy referral cases into one of 10 decisions using an internally developed triage tool. Agreement across clinicians' decisions between and within cases was assessed using Fleiss's kappa overall and within pay grade. Proportions of triage decisions consistent with criterion decisions were assessed using Cochran's Q test.

Results: Clinician agreement was fair for all cases (κ = 0.385) irrespective of pay grade but varied within clinical cases (κ = -0.014-0.786). Proportions of correct triage decisions were significantly different across cases [Q(4) = 33.80, P < 0.001] ranging from 17% to 83%.

Conclusions: Agreement and consistency in decisions were variable using the tool. Ensuring referrer information is accurate is vital, as is developing, automating and auditing standards for certain referrals with clear pathways. But we argue that variable vetting outcomes might represent healthy pathway abundance and should not simply be automated in response to perceived inefficiencies.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信