The New Zealand medical journal · 2016
A national survey of cardiac rehabilitation services in New Zealand: 2015.
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.
Kira Geoff, Doolan-Noble Fiona, Humphreys Grace, Williams Gina, O'Shaughnessy Helen, Devlin Gerry
Аннотация
AIMS: Guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes inform best practice. In Aotearoa NewZealand, little information exists about the structure and services provided by CR programmes and there is a poor understanding of how existing CR programmes are delivered with respect to evidence-based national guidelines.
METHODS: All 46 CR providers in New Zealand were invited to participate in a national survey in 2015. The survey sought information on the following: unit structure; referral processes; patient assessment; audit (including quality assurance activity); Phase 2 CR content; and support for special populations. Simple descriptive analysis of the responses was conducted, involving forming counts and percentages.
RESULTS: Thirty-six distinct units completed the survey and 94% provided Phase 2. Assessment tools, Phase 2 educational components, and the methods of providing the exercise component varied. Most units audited their services, 25% audited their programme six-monthly or more frequently. Just over half of the units (56%) reported key performance indicators.
CONCLUSIONS: The survey identified variations in delivery and content of CR in New Zealand, with poor understanding of the impact on patient outcomes. This is likely due to the absence of standardised audit practices and routine collection of key performance indicators on a national basis.
METHODS: All 46 CR providers in New Zealand were invited to participate in a national survey in 2015. The survey sought information on the following: unit structure; referral processes; patient assessment; audit (including quality assurance activity); Phase 2 CR content; and support for special populations. Simple descriptive analysis of the responses was conducted, involving forming counts and percentages.
RESULTS: Thirty-six distinct units completed the survey and 94% provided Phase 2. Assessment tools, Phase 2 educational components, and the methods of providing the exercise component varied. Most units audited their services, 25% audited their programme six-monthly or more frequently. Just over half of the units (56%) reported key performance indicators.
CONCLUSIONS: The survey identified variations in delivery and content of CR in New Zealand, with poor understanding of the impact on patient outcomes. This is likely due to the absence of standardised audit practices and routine collection of key performance indicators on a national basis.