临床审核用于再验证:是否足够准确?

Rajwinder S Jutley BSc, MB, ChB, MRCS, Aileen Mckinley MB, ChB, FRCS, Mohammed Hobeldin MBBCh, MS, MD, FRCSGlasg, FRCS(Paeds), Anies Mohamed FCS(SA), FRCSGlasg, FRCSEd, FRCS(Paeds)UK, George G Youngson PhD, FRCS
{"title":"临床审核用于再验证:是否足够准确?","authors":"Rajwinder S Jutley BSc, MB, ChB, MRCS,&nbsp;Aileen Mckinley MB, ChB, FRCS,&nbsp;Mohammed Hobeldin MBBCh, MS, MD, FRCSGlasg, FRCS(Paeds),&nbsp;Anies Mohamed FCS(SA), FRCSGlasg, FRCSEd, FRCS(Paeds)UK,&nbsp;George G Youngson PhD, FRCS","doi":"10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p> <b>Abstract</b> In order to provide better patient care, clinicians will be subject to revalidation and re-certification. This may be partially based on existing and ongoing data collection, yet many units fail to incorporate mechanisms that validate the data that may be used. The accuracy of audit data was evaluated in a unit that has been using commercially available audit software for over 10years. A total of 655 consecutive surgical admissions were documented over a 6-month period and errors in data collection and entry were gathered and analyzed. An overall accuracy of 90.5% was confirmed but examination of the data found them to be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, 13% of errors were made during a single week when locum staff were involved. The study highlights the fallibility of data collection during audit, and urges caution if using such data when judging performance-related issues as part of the process of appraisal.</p>","PeriodicalId":79407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of quality in clinical practice","volume":"21 3","pages":"71-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of clinical audit for revalidation: Is it sufficiently accurate?\",\"authors\":\"Rajwinder S Jutley BSc, MB, ChB, MRCS,&nbsp;Aileen Mckinley MB, ChB, FRCS,&nbsp;Mohammed Hobeldin MBBCh, MS, MD, FRCSGlasg, FRCS(Paeds),&nbsp;Anies Mohamed FCS(SA), FRCSGlasg, FRCSEd, FRCS(Paeds)UK,&nbsp;George G Youngson PhD, FRCS\",\"doi\":\"10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p> <b>Abstract</b> In order to provide better patient care, clinicians will be subject to revalidation and re-certification. This may be partially based on existing and ongoing data collection, yet many units fail to incorporate mechanisms that validate the data that may be used. The accuracy of audit data was evaluated in a unit that has been using commercially available audit software for over 10years. A total of 655 consecutive surgical admissions were documented over a 6-month period and errors in data collection and entry were gathered and analyzed. An overall accuracy of 90.5% was confirmed but examination of the data found them to be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, 13% of errors were made during a single week when locum staff were involved. The study highlights the fallibility of data collection during audit, and urges caution if using such data when judging performance-related issues as part of the process of appraisal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of quality in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"21 3\",\"pages\":\"71-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of quality in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of quality in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

为了提供更好的患者护理,临床医生将受到重新验证和重新认证。这可能部分地基于现有的和正在进行的数据收集,但是许多单位未能合并验证可能使用的数据的机制。审计数据的准确性在一个使用商业审计软件超过10年的单位进行了评估。在6个月的时间里,共记录了655例连续的手术入院,并收集和分析了数据收集和输入中的错误。总体准确性为90.5%,但对数据的检查发现它们容易被误解。此外,13%的错误是在当地员工参与的一周内发生的。该研究强调了审计期间数据收集的不准确性,并敦促在作为评价过程的一部分判断与业绩有关的问题时使用这些数据时要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of clinical audit for revalidation: Is it sufficiently accurate?

Abstract In order to provide better patient care, clinicians will be subject to revalidation and re-certification. This may be partially based on existing and ongoing data collection, yet many units fail to incorporate mechanisms that validate the data that may be used. The accuracy of audit data was evaluated in a unit that has been using commercially available audit software for over 10years. A total of 655 consecutive surgical admissions were documented over a 6-month period and errors in data collection and entry were gathered and analyzed. An overall accuracy of 90.5% was confirmed but examination of the data found them to be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, 13% of errors were made during a single week when locum staff were involved. The study highlights the fallibility of data collection during audit, and urges caution if using such data when judging performance-related issues as part of the process of appraisal.

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