Avanzando en la sistematización del benchmarking en servicios de salud pública

Continuous management improvement should be an aspiration for all public sector organizations. External comparison or benchmarking identifies good practices in similar organizations. For public health services, it is not easy to obtain such indicators. The objectives of this paper are to describe the process of conducting a benchmarking exercise for a public health agency, and to share its results. For this purpose, agencies that may be compared were identified, and their websites were searched for annual reports or other documents with indicators of the activities or results of public health services. Limitations and contextual aspects of the indicators of the different organizations were identified, as well as ways to improve their comparability. Finally, a set of 19 indicators is proposed, as an initial core for quality management comparisons.     

呼吸专科护士慢性呼吸疾病管理现状调查

目的调查呼吸专科护士慢性呼吸疾病管理现状,为提高慢性呼吸疾病的管理水平提供参考。方法依据《中国成人慢性呼吸疾病患者护理管理指南》设计调查问卷,对重庆、四川、贵州、陕西、河北、湖北、海南7省市的205名呼吸专科护士进行问卷调查。结果呼吸专科护士慢性呼吸疾病管理总分为(140.72±23.90)分。慢性呼吸疾病管理得分最低的3个条目有评估工具应用、个性化管理计划的实施、慢阻肺随访的次数及指导哮喘患者使用峰流速仪;呼吸专科护士所在单位慢性呼吸疾病管理平台建设均低于50%。结论呼吸专科护士慢性呼吸疾病管理处于中等偏下水平,评估是慢性呼吸疾病管理的薄弱点。需加强呼吸专科护士专业能力培养,规范慢性呼吸疾病全程管理,强化医院平台建设等,提高慢性呼吸疾病的管理水平。     

六西格玛在肿瘤标志物质量目标选择上的应用

目的应用6σ理论对肿瘤标志物项目的分析性能进行评价，并初步确定各项目的质量目标。 方法收集本实验室2018年1至12月室内质控数据和国家卫生健康委临床检验中心室间质量评价结果，以生物学变异导出的质量规范和国家室间质量评价标准作为允许总误差(TEa)计算6项肿瘤标志物的σ水平，并依据质量目标选择流程图和肿瘤标志物分析性能验证图评价肿瘤标志物的分析性能，进而为肿瘤标志物选择合适的质量目标。 结果应用不同层级的生物学变异导出的质量规范和国家室间质量评价标准，肿瘤标志物项目的σ水平存在显著差异；依据质量目标选择流程图：选择生物学变异导出的"适当的"质量规范作为CA125项目的质量目标，选择生物学变异导出的"最低的"质量规范作为t-PSA、CEA、AFP、CA199和CA153项目的质量目标。 结论6σ能够客观评价肿瘤标志物的分析性能，并为实验室质量目标的选择提供重要的参考价值。     

Deep Brain Stimulation Compared With Contingency Management for the Treatment of Cocaine Use Disorders: A Threshold and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesCocaine is the second most frequently used illicit drug worldwide (after cannabis), and cocaine use disorder (CUD)-related deaths increased globally by 80% from 1990 to 2013. There is yet to be a regulatory-approved treatment. Emerging preclinical evidence indicates that deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the nucleus accumbens may be a therapeutic option. Prior to expanding the costly investigation of DBS for treatment of CUD, it is important to ensure societal cost-effectiveness.AimsWe conducted a threshold and cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the success rate at which DBS would be equivalent to contingency management (CM), recently identified as the most efficacious therapy for treatments of CUDs.Materials and MethodsQuality of life, efficacy, and safety parameters for CM were obtained from previous literature. Costs were calculated from a societal perspective. Our model predicted the utility benefit based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio resulting from two treatments on a one-, two-, and five-year timeline.ResultsOn a one-year timeline, DBS would need to impart a success rate (ie, cocaine free) of 70% for it to yield the same utility benefit (0.492 QALYs per year) as CM. At no success rate would DBS be more cost-effective (incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) than CM during the first year. Nevertheless, as DBS costs are front loaded, DBS would need to achieve success rates of 74% and 51% for its cost-effectiveness to exceed that of CM over a two- and five-year period, respectively.ConclusionsWe find DBS would not be cost-effective in the short term (one year) but may be cost-effective in longer timelines. Since DBS holds promise to potentially be a cost-effective treatment for CUDs, future randomized controlled trials should be performed to assess its efficacy.     

A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of non-operative management in patients with high grade liver injury

IntroductionThe liver is the most frequently damaged organ in blunt abdominal trauma. It is widely accepted that hemodynamically stable patients with low-grade liver trauma should be treated with non-operative management, however there is controversy surrounding its safety and efficacy in high-grade trauma. The purpose of this review is to investigate the role of non-operative management in patients with high-grade liver trauma.MethodsPubMed and reference lists of PubMed articles were searched to find studies that examined the efficacy of non-operative management in high-grade liver injury patients, and compare it to operative management. Non-operative management was considered successful if rescue surgery was avoided. Outcomes considered were success, mortality, and complication rates.ResultsThe electronic search revealed 2662 records, 8 of which met the inclusion criteria. All 8 studies contained results suggesting that non-operative management was safe and effective in hemodynamically stable patients with high-grade liver trauma. By combining the outcomes of the different studies, non-operative management had a high success rate of 92.4% (194/210) in high-grade liver trauma patients, which was near the overall 95.0% non-operative management success rate. Non-operative management also had mortality and complication rates of 4.6% (9/194) and 9.7% (7/72) in high-grade injury patients, respectively, compared to operative management's 17.6% (26/148) and 45.5% (5/11).ConclusionNon-operative management of liver trauma is safe and effective in hemodynamically stable patients with high-grade liver injury. It is associated with significantly lower mortality compared with operative management. More studies are required to evaluate complications of non-operative management in high-grade liver injury.