BMJ open · 2019
Facilitators for using data from a quality registry in local quality improvement work: a cross-sectional survey of the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Lindström Egholm Cecilie, Helmark Charlotte, Christensen Jan, Eldh Ann Catrine, Winblad Ulrika, Bunkenborg Gitte, Zwisler Ann-Dorthe, Nilsen Per
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate use of data from a clinical quality registry for cardiac rehabilitation in Denmark, considering the extent to which data are used for local quality improvement and what facilitates the use of these data, with a particular focus on whether there are differences between frontline staff and managers.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey study.
SETTING, METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: A previously validated, Swedish questionnaire regarding use of data from clinical quality registries was translated and emailed to frontline staff, mid-level managers and heads of departments (n=175) in all 30 hospital departments participating in the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database. Data were analysed descriptively and through multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: Survey response rate was 58% (101/175). Reports of registry use at department level (measured through an index comprising seven items; score min 0, max 7, where a low score indicates less use of data) varied significantly between groups of respondents: frontline staff mean score 1.3 (SD=2.0), mid-level management mean 2.4 (SD=2.3) and heads of departments mean 3.0 (SD=2.5), p=0.006. Overall, department level use of data was positively associated with higher perceived data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.22, p=0.019), management request for data (regression coefficient=0.40, p=0.008) and personal motivation of the respondent (regression coefficient=1.63, p<0.001). Among managers, use of registry data was associated with data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.43, p=0.027), and among frontline staff, reported data use was associated with management involvement in quality improvement work (regression coefficient=0.90, p=0.017) and personal motivation (regression coefficient=1.66, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest relatively sparse use of data in local quality improvement work. A complex interplay of factors seem to be associated with data use with varying aspects being of importance for frontline staff and managers.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey study.
SETTING, METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: A previously validated, Swedish questionnaire regarding use of data from clinical quality registries was translated and emailed to frontline staff, mid-level managers and heads of departments (n=175) in all 30 hospital departments participating in the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database. Data were analysed descriptively and through multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: Survey response rate was 58% (101/175). Reports of registry use at department level (measured through an index comprising seven items; score min 0, max 7, where a low score indicates less use of data) varied significantly between groups of respondents: frontline staff mean score 1.3 (SD=2.0), mid-level management mean 2.4 (SD=2.3) and heads of departments mean 3.0 (SD=2.5), p=0.006. Overall, department level use of data was positively associated with higher perceived data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.22, p=0.019), management request for data (regression coefficient=0.40, p=0.008) and personal motivation of the respondent (regression coefficient=1.63, p<0.001). Among managers, use of registry data was associated with data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.43, p=0.027), and among frontline staff, reported data use was associated with management involvement in quality improvement work (regression coefficient=0.90, p=0.017) and personal motivation (regression coefficient=1.66, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest relatively sparse use of data in local quality improvement work. A complex interplay of factors seem to be associated with data use with varying aspects being of importance for frontline staff and managers.