BMC nursing · 2025
Construction and application of a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhang Yuejiao, Zhao Ruiyi, Sun Hongling, Jiang Nan, Shao Xiaoling, Xia Jiangliu
Аннотация
OBJECT: To construct a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing and identify deficiencies in clinical practice.
METHODS: Based on the structure-process-outcome framework, we developed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi consultation (n = 22 experts). We used the analytic hierarchy process determined indicator weights. Validation included an empirical evaluation across 30 public hospitals using TOPSIS and RSR methods.
RESULTS: The finalized system comprises 3 first-level, 15 s-level, and 49 third-level indicators. Expert authority coefficients were 0.903/0.898; Kendall's W = 0.321/0.329 (P < 0.01). Hospital performance: total score = 84.09 ± 8.63 (structure = 14.90 ± 2.73; process = 33.77 ± 4.39; outcome = 35.42 ± 2.95). TOPSIS-RSR analysis identified H13, H3, and H27 as top performers and H4, H1, and H20 as needing improvement.
CONCLUSION: The validated system effectively identifies clinical weaknesses and provides actionable insights for quality enhancement.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
METHODS: Based on the structure-process-outcome framework, we developed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi consultation (n = 22 experts). We used the analytic hierarchy process determined indicator weights. Validation included an empirical evaluation across 30 public hospitals using TOPSIS and RSR methods.
RESULTS: The finalized system comprises 3 first-level, 15 s-level, and 49 third-level indicators. Expert authority coefficients were 0.903/0.898; Kendall's W = 0.321/0.329 (P < 0.01). Hospital performance: total score = 84.09 ± 8.63 (structure = 14.90 ± 2.73; process = 33.77 ± 4.39; outcome = 35.42 ± 2.95). TOPSIS-RSR analysis identified H13, H3, and H27 as top performers and H4, H1, and H20 as needing improvement.
CONCLUSION: The validated system effectively identifies clinical weaknesses and provides actionable insights for quality enhancement.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.