首页> 外文期刊>Research Involvement and Engagement >Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care
【24h】

Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care

机译:患者报告的骨关节炎质量指标:患者和公众生成的用于初级保健的自我报告措施

获取原文
           

摘要

Plain English summaryPeople with osteoarthritis desire high quality care, support and information. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care are being met from a patient perspective.The aim of this study was to describe how a Research User Group (RUG) worked alongside researchers to co-produce a set of self-reported quality indicators for people with osteoarthritis when visiting their general practitioner or practice nurse (primary care). These were required in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE quality standards for OA.This article describes the public involvement in the MOSAICS study. This was 1) the co-development by RUG members and researchers of an Osteoarthritis Quality Indicators United Kingdom (OA QI (UK)) questionnaire for use in primary care, and 2) the comparison of the OA QI (UK) with a similar questionnaire developed in Norway.This study shows how important and effective a research user group can be in working with researchers in developing quality care indicators for osteoarthritis for use in a research study and, potentially, routine use in primary care. The questionnaire is intended to benefit patients by enabling the assessment of the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis from a patient’s perspective. The OA QI (UK) has been used to examine differences in the quality of osteoarthritis care in four European countries. Background People with osteoarthritis (OA) desire high quality care, support and information about OA. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators (QI) can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care (e.g. NICE quality standards) are being met from a patient perspective. A Research User Group (RUG) worked with researchers to co-produce a set of self-report, patient-generated QIs for OA. The QIs were intended for use in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE guidelines. We report on 1) the co-development of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire for primary care; and 2) the comparison of the content of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire with a parallel questionnaire developed in Norway for the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker (MUST) study. Methods Researchers were invited to OA RUG meetings. Firstly, RUG members were asked to consider factors important to patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) for OA and then each person rated their five most important. RUG members then discussed these in relation to a systematic review of OA QIs in order to form a list of OA QIs?from a patient perspective. RUG members suggested wording and response options for a draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire to assess the QIs. Finally RUG members commented on draft and final versions of the questionnaire and how it compared with a translated Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire. Results RUG members (5 males, 5 females; aged 52–80 years) attended up to four meetings. RUG members ranked 20 factors considered most important to patients consulting their GP for joint pain. Following discussion, a list of eleven patient-reported QIs for OA consultations were formed. RUG members then suggested the wording and response options of 16 draft items – four QIs were split into two or more questionnaire items to avoid multiple dimensions of care quality within a single item. On comparison of this to the Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire, RUG members commented that both questionnaires contained seven similar QIs. The RUG members and researchers agreed to adopt the Norwegian OA-QI wording for four of these items. RUG members also recommended adopting an additional seven items from the Norwegian OA-QI with some minor word changes to improve their suitability for patients in the UK. One other item from the draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire was retained and eight items were excluded, resulting in a 15-item final version. Conclusions This study describes the development of patient-reported quality indicators for OA primary care derived by members of a RUG group, working in partnership with the research team throughout the study. The OA QI (UK) supports the NICE quality standards for OA and they have been successfully used to assess the quality of OA consultations in primary care in the MOSAICS study. The OA QI (UK) has the potential for routine use in primary care to assess the quality of OA care provided to patients.Ongoing research using both the UK and Norwegian OA-QI questionnaires is assessing the self-reported quality of OA care in different European populations.
机译:普通英语摘要骨关节炎患者需要高质量的护理,支持和信息。但是,通常不会收集一般情况下对OA患者的护理质量。质量指标可用于通过从患者角度衡量是否达到最低质量护理标准来使患者受益。本研究的目的是描述研究用户组(RUG)与研究人员如何共同制作一组骨关节炎患者去看全科医生或执业护士时的自我报告质量指标(初级保健)。这些在MOSAICS研究中是必需的,该研究开发并评估了支持OA自我管理的新模型,以实现OA的NICE质量标准。本文介绍了公众参与MOSAICS研究的过程。这是1)RUG成员和研究人员共同开发的英国骨关节炎质量指标(OA QI(UK))调查表,用于初级保健,以及2)OA QI(UK)与类似调查表的比较这项研究显示了研究用户群体在与研究人员合作开发用于研究的骨关节炎的质量护理指标以及潜在地在常规护理中的常规使用方面的重要性和有效性。该问卷旨在通过从患者的角度评估骨关节炎的初级保健质量来使患者受益。 OA QI(英国)已用于检查四个欧洲国家/地区骨关节炎护理质量的差异。背景技术骨关节炎(OA)的人们需要高质量的护理,支持和有关OA的信息。但是,通常不会收集一般情况下对OA患者的护理质量。质量指标(QI)可通过从患者角度衡量是否达到最低质量护理标准(例如NICE质量标准)来使患者受益。一个研究用户组(RUG)与研究人员合作,共同制作了一组针对患者的自报告,患者生成的QI。 QI旨在用于MOSAICS研究,该研究开发并评估了支持OA自我管理的新模型,以实施NICE指南。我们报告1)联合开发的OA QI(英国)初级保健问卷; 2)将OA QI(英国)问卷的内容与挪威开发的针对Ullensaker的肌肉骨骼疼痛(MUST)研究的平行问卷进行比较。方法研究人员应邀参加OA RUG会议。首先,RUG成员被要求考虑对咨询OA的全科医生(GP)的患者重要的因素,然后每个人都将其五个最重要的因素进行评分。然后,RUG成员讨论了与OA QI的系统评价有关的这些问题,以便从患者的角度形成OA QI列表。 RUG成员为OA QI(英国)问卷调查表的措辞和响应选项提出了建议,以评估QI。最后,RUG成员对问卷的草案和最终版本以及与挪威OA-QI译文进行了比较。结果RUG成员(5名男性,5名女性; 52-80岁)参加了多达四次会议。 RUG成员对认为是GP的关节痛患者最重要的20个因素进行了排名。讨论之后,形成了用于OA咨询的11个患者报告的QI列表。然后,RUG成员建议了16个草案项目的措词和答复选项–将四个QI分为两个或多个问卷调查项目,以避免在单个项目中涉及多个护理质量维度。在将此与挪威OA-QI调查表进行比较后,RUG成员评论说,两个调查表都包含七个类似的QI。 RUG成员和研究人员同意对其中四个项目采用挪威OA-QI措词。 RUG成员还建议采用挪威OA-QI的其他七个产品,并稍作改动,以提高其对英国患者的适应性。保留了OA QI(英国)调查表草案中的另一项,排除了八项,最终形成了15项。结论本研究描述了RUG小组成员与研究团队合作在整个研究过程中开发的患者报告的OA初级保健质量指标的发展。 OA QI(英国)支持NICE的OA质量标准,并且已在MOSAICS研究中成功地用于评估初级保健中OA咨询的质量。 OA QI(UK)有可能在初级保健中常规使用以评估提供给患者的OA护理的质量。使用英国和挪威OA-QI问卷进行的持续研究正在评估不同人群中OA自我报告的质量欧洲人口。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号