The Consumer Quality Index in an accident and emergency department: internal consistency,validity and discriminative capacity

Background

Patients’ experiences are an indicator of health‐care performance in the accident and emergency department (A&E). The Consumer Quality Index for the Accident and Emergency department (CQI A&E), a questionnaire to assess the quality of care as experienced by patients, was investigated. The internal consistency, construct validity and discriminative capacity of the questionnaire were examined.

Methods

In the Netherlands, twenty‐one A&Es participated in a cross‐sectional survey, covering 4883 patients. The questionnaire consisted of 78 questions. Principal components analysis determined underlying domains. Internal consistency was determined by Cronbach''s alpha coefficients, construct validity by Pearson''s correlation coefficients and the discriminative capacity by intraclass correlation coefficients and reliability of A&E‐level mean scores (G‐coefficient).

Results

Seven quality domains emerged from the principal components analysis: information before treatment, timeliness, attitude of health‐care professionals, professionalism of received care, information during treatment, environment and facilities, and discharge management. Domains were internally consistent (range: 0.67–0.84). Five domains and the ‘global quality rating’ had the capacity to discriminate among A&Es (significant intraclass correlation coefficient). Four domains and the ‘global quality rating’ were close to or above the threshold for reliably demonstrating differences among A&Es. The patients’ experiences score on the domain timeliness showed the largest range between the worst‐ and best‐performing A&E.

Conclusions

The CQI A&E is a validated survey to measure health‐care performance in the A&E from patients’ perspective. Five domains regarding quality of care aspects and the ‘global quality rating’ had the capacity to discriminate among A&Es.     

Evaluating Quality in Adult Cardiac Surgery

National and institutional quality initiatives provide benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness of medical care. However, the dramatic growth in the number and type of medical and organizational quality-improvement standards creates a challenge to identify and understand those that most accurately determine quality in cardiac surgery. It is important that surgeons have knowledge and insight into valid, useful indicators for comparison and improvement. We therefore reviewed the medical literature and have identified improvement initiatives focused on cardiac surgery. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of existing methodologies, such as comprehensive regional and national databases that aid self-evaluation and feedback, volume-based standards as structural indicators, process measurements arising from evidence-based research, and risk-adjusted outcomes. In addition, we discuss the potential of newer methods, such as patient-reported outcomes and composite measurements that combine data from multiple sources.     

Cautions on the laboratory indicators of COVID‐19 patients on and during admission

BackgroundDifferent disease severities of COVID‐19 patients could be reflected on clinical laboratory findings.MethodsIn this single‐centered retrospective study, demographic, clinical, and laboratory indicators on and during admission were compared among 74 participants with mild, moderate, critical severe, or severe classification. Risk factors associated with disease severity were analyzed by multivariate analyses. The AUC and 95% CI of the ROC curve were calculated.ResultsThe most common manifestations of these patients were fever and cough. Critical severe or severe group owned the longest length of stay (23 (19,31), p < 0.001). After multivariate logistic regression, independent influence factors on admission for severity of disease were CK‐MB (OR 0.674; 95% CI 0.489–0.928; p = 0.016), LDH (OR 1.111 or 1.107; 95% CI 1.026–1.204 or 1.022–1.199; p = 0.009 or 0.013), normal T‐BIL (OR 4.58 × 10⁻⁸; 95% CI 3.05 × 10⁻⁹–6.88 × 10⁻⁷; p < 0.001), LYM% (OR 0.008; 95% CI 0–0.602; p = 0.029), and normal ESR (OR 0.016; 95% CI 0–0.498; p = 0.019). Factors during hospitalization were normal T‐BIL (OR 8.56 × 10⁻⁹; 95% CI 8.30 × 10⁻¹⁰–8.83 × 10⁻⁸; p < 0.001), LYM (OR 0.068; 95% CI 0.005–0.934; p = 0.044), albumin (OR 0.565; 95% CI 0.327–0.977; p = 0.041), and normal NEU% (OR 0.013; 95% CI 0.000–0.967; p = 0.048). Combined indicators of AUC were 0.860 (LYM, LDH, and normal ESR on admission, p < 0.001) and 0.750 (CK‐MB, LDH, and normal T‐BIL during hospitalization, p = 0.020) when predicting for severe or critical severe patients.ConclusionTo pay close attention to the progression of COVID‐19 and take measures promptly, we should be cautious of the laboratory indicators when patients on admission especially CK‐MB, LDH, LYM%, T‐BIL as well as ESR; and T‐BIL, LYM, albumin, NEU% with the process of disease.     

Indicadores bibliométricos para evaluar la actividad científica

Bibliometric indicators have been devised to quantify scientific production and to try to evaluate its impact in the community. In general, bibliometric indicators can be classified according to whether the unit of analysis is the author (individual or group) or journal. The most widely used indicators for authors are those that measure an individual author's production, such as the Crown index or the h-index and its derivatives (e-index, h5-index, and the absolute or Ab-index, among others). The bibliometric indicators devised to try to evaluate journal quality are associated with Journal Citation Reports (e.g., impact factor, field-weighted citation impact, Eigenfactor, and article influence) or with Scopus (Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), and CiteScore). This article describes the main bibliometric indicators, explains how they are calculated, and discusses their advantages and limitations.     

Diagnostic radiography students' experiences of a practical method demonstrating the effect of milliampere-second in digital X-ray imaging systems

BackgroundThe effect of exposure technique factors varies between analogue and digital X-ray imaging systems (DR). Understanding these variations is paramount to optimising radiation protection, yet radiographers are unclear about these effects. A practical method to demonstrate milliampere second (mAs) effect in DR was developed to assist diagnostic radiography students in understanding exposure technique factors in DR.ObjectivesTo explore second-year diagnostic radiography students' experiences of a practical method to demonstrate the effect of mAs in DR.MethodsA qualitative research approach employing an open-ended questionnaire explored second-year diagnostic radiography students' experiences of the practical method demonstrating the effect of mAs in DR. Twenty students participated in the study, and the data collected underwent thematic analysis.ResultsStudents appreciated working in small groups and provided suggestions to improve the practical method's instruction sheet. Most students' predicted outcome differed from the actual outcome of the demonstration. Seeing and documenting the effect of mAs in DR not only enhanced students' understanding of it but showed the implications of increasing mAs on image quality and radiation exposure.ConclusionStudents found that the practical method enhanced their understanding of mAs and exposure technique factors in DR. Additionally, the practical method highlighted exposure creep in DR and radiographers' role in protecting patients from overexposure to ionising radiation in the digital era.     

普通外科ERAS病房护理敏感指标的构建及其应用

目的:探讨普通外科加速康复外科(enhanced recovery after surgery,ERAS)病房护理敏感指标的构建及其应用价值。方法:结合我院普外科ERAS病房实际情况及文献报道,构建护理敏感指标,并对我院普通外科ERAS病房即护士进行集体培训、考核。以我院普通外科ERAS病房护理敏感指标构建后即2018年7月—2019年8月98例胃肠疾病手术病人为观察组;以普通外科ERAS病房护理敏感指标构建前即2017年5月—2018年6月100例胃肠疾病手术病人为对照组。两组均给予普外科常规护理,观察组另给予ERAS护理;比较两组护理质量、下床活动时间、肛门排气时间、住院时间、医疗费用、术后并发症。结果:观察组专业技术能力[(19.02±2.51)分]、健康教育[(19.18±2.72)分]、服务态度[(19.25±2.52)分]、沟通能力[(19.08±2.47)分]、护理文书书写[(19.36±2.28)分]评分明显高于对照组[(16.84±2.83)分、(17.21±2.77)分、(18.13±2.73)分、(17.27±2.58)分、(16.72±2.46)分](P<0.05或P<0.01)。观察组下床活动时间[(11.3±1.2)h]、肛门排气时间[(19.3±3.8)h]、住院时间[(5.7±0.4)d]、医疗费用(6632±458)元明显低于对照组[(14.6±2.3)h、(24.7±5.4)h、(8.5±1.7)d、(8346±725)元](P<0.001)。观察组并发症发生率(12.24%)明显低于对照组(40.00%)(P<0.001)。结论:普通外科ERAS病房护理敏感指标的构建有利于提高护理质量,促进病人康复,并降低并发症。