首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   60篇
  免费   17篇
耳鼻咽喉   1篇
儿科学   1篇
基础医学   1篇
口腔科学   1篇
临床医学   16篇
内科学   23篇
外科学   3篇
预防医学   5篇
眼科学   1篇
药学   1篇
肿瘤学   24篇
  2024年   5篇
  2023年   16篇
  2022年   5篇
  2021年   3篇
  2020年   6篇
  2019年   6篇
  2018年   7篇
  2017年   6篇
  2016年   9篇
  2015年   4篇
  2014年   6篇
  2013年   2篇
  2011年   1篇
  1993年   1篇
排序方式: 共有77条查询结果,搜索用时 62 毫秒
41.
42.
43.
44.
    

Objective

To provide a research agenda and recommendations to address inequities in access to health care.

Data Sources and Study Setting

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) organized a Health Equity Summit in July 2022 to evaluate what equity in access to health care means in the context of AHRQ's mission and health care delivery implementation portfolio. The findings are a result of this Summit, and subsequent convenings of experts on access and equity from academia, industry, and the government.

Study Design

Multi-stakeholder input from AHRQ's Health Equity Summit, author consensus on a framework and key knowledge gaps, and summary of evidence from the supporting literature in the context of the framework ensure comprehensive recommendations.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Through a stakeholder-engaged process, themes were developed to conceptualize access with a lens toward health equity. A working group researched the most appropriate framework for access to care to classify limitations identified during the Summit and develop recommendations supported by research in the context of the framework. This strategy was intentional, as the literature on inequities in access to care may itself be biased.

Principal Findings

The Levesque et al. framework, which incorporates multiple dimensions of access (approachability, acceptability, availability, accommodation, affordability, and appropriateness), is the backdrop for framing research priorities for AHRQ. However, addressing inequities in access cannot be done without considering the roles of racism and intersectionality. Recommendations include funding research that not only measures racism within health care but also tests burgeoning anti-racist practices (e.g., co-production, provider training, holistic review, discrimination reporting, etc.), acting as a convener and thought leader in synthesizing best practices to mitigate racism, and forging the path forward for research on equity and access.

Conclusions

AHRQ is well-positioned to develop an action plan, strategically fund it, and convene stakeholders across the health care spectrum to employ these recommendations.  相似文献   
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

Background

Handoffs among post-graduate year 1 (PGY1) trainees occur with high frequency. Peer assessment of handoff competence would add a new perspective on how well the handoff information helped them to provide optimal patient care.

Objective

The goals of this study were to test the feasibility of the approach of an instrument for peer assessment of handoffs by meeting criteria of being able to use technology to capture evaluations in real time, exhibiting strong psychometric properties, and having high PGY1 satisfaction scores.

Design

An iPad® application was built for a seven-item handoff instrument. Over a two-month period, post-call PGY1s completed assessments of three co-PGY1s from whom they received handoffs the prior evening.

Participants

Internal Medicine PGY1s at the University of Pennsylvania.

Main Measures

ANOVA was used to explore interperson score differences (validity). Generalizability analyses provided estimates of score precision (reproducibility). PGY1s completed satisfaction surveys about the process.

Key Results

Sixty-two PGY1s (100 %) participated in the study. 59 % of the targeted evaluations were completed. The major limitations were network connectivity and inability to find the post-call trainee. PGY1 scores on the single item of “overall competency” ranged from 4 to 9 with a mean of 7.31 (SD 1.09). Generalizability coefficients approached 0.60 for 10 evaluations per PGY1 for a single rotation and 12 evaluations per PGY1 across multiple rotations. The majority of PGY1s believed that they could adequately assess handoff competence and that the peer assessment process was valuable (70 and 77 %, respectively).

Conclusion

Psychometric properties of an instrument for peer assessment of handoffs are encouraging. Obtaining 10 or 12 evaluations per PGY1 allowed for reliable assessment of handoff skills. Peer evaluations of handoffs using mobile technology were feasible, and were well received by PGY1s.  相似文献   
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号