Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2010
[Integration of chronic pelvic pain to the accreditation and professional practice assessment procedures].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sibert L, Rigaud J, Delavierre D, Labat J-J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To list available actions in order to optimize urological care of patients suffering from chronic pelvic and perineal pain, based on guidelines for accreditation and professional practice assessment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Legislative texts concerning accreditation and PPA, as well as professional recommendations concerning chronic pains have been consulted.
RESULTS: Professional practice assessment of chronic pelvic and perineal pain is hampered by the lack of specific professional guidelines. Urological management of chronic pelvic and perineal pain can only be optimized if initial and continued training is strengthened. Furthermore, current professional structures implemented for professional practice assessment and accreditation processes (staff, multi-disciplinary meetings, morbidity-mortality reviews) should be applied in a more systematic way to pelvic chronic pain by urologists.
CONCLUSION: The need for improvement in the management of chronic pelvic pain is felt in the urological field, and should lead to developing means of evaluating professional practices, a goal to which the French Urology Association has committed itself.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Legislative texts concerning accreditation and PPA, as well as professional recommendations concerning chronic pains have been consulted.
RESULTS: Professional practice assessment of chronic pelvic and perineal pain is hampered by the lack of specific professional guidelines. Urological management of chronic pelvic and perineal pain can only be optimized if initial and continued training is strengthened. Furthermore, current professional structures implemented for professional practice assessment and accreditation processes (staff, multi-disciplinary meetings, morbidity-mortality reviews) should be applied in a more systematic way to pelvic chronic pain by urologists.
CONCLUSION: The need for improvement in the management of chronic pelvic pain is felt in the urological field, and should lead to developing means of evaluating professional practices, a goal to which the French Urology Association has committed itself.