The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2015
A multi-centre audit of epistaxis management in England: is there a case for a national review of practice?
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Hall A C, Blanchford H, Chatrath P, Hopkins C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The ENT-UK Clinical Audit and Practice Advisory Group initiated a pilot audit to investigate variance in epistaxis management between six units nationwide.
METHOD: All patients with a diagnosis of epistaxis who were admitted for in-patient care at six ENT departments between November 2011 and February 2012 were prospectively enrolled.
RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were included in the study. Variance was demonstrated between the six units in a number of the key outcome areas. Twenty-eight per cent of patients were identified as eligible for operative intervention for epistaxis in one unit, compared with only 12.5 per cent in another.
CONCLUSION: There are measurable, patient-relevant outcomes to assess epistaxis management and these can highlight areas of potential improvement. This pilot audit gives a snapshot of modern practice, which shows variance between the six units assessed. A national audit may allow us to improve patient experience and maximise efficiency in delivering emergency care in our most common patient encounter.
METHOD: All patients with a diagnosis of epistaxis who were admitted for in-patient care at six ENT departments between November 2011 and February 2012 were prospectively enrolled.
RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were included in the study. Variance was demonstrated between the six units in a number of the key outcome areas. Twenty-eight per cent of patients were identified as eligible for operative intervention for epistaxis in one unit, compared with only 12.5 per cent in another.
CONCLUSION: There are measurable, patient-relevant outcomes to assess epistaxis management and these can highlight areas of potential improvement. This pilot audit gives a snapshot of modern practice, which shows variance between the six units assessed. A national audit may allow us to improve patient experience and maximise efficiency in delivering emergency care in our most common patient encounter.