Dataset Information

Quality assurance in the endoscopy unit: the view of endoscopy personnel.

ABSTRACT: Quality of health services depend on the entire medical team. A supportive team culture and effective leadership is required for successful quality assurance (QA). The opinion of endoscopy personnel towards QA is unknown, while they have to collaborate in many quality projects.A survey was sent to all endoscopy nurses, assistants and managers. It focused on the implementation of a QA programme. Further, a team assessment was included, focusing on leadership and team functioning, using scores on 5-point Likert scales, with 1 being a very positive opinion, and 5 being a very negative opinion towards the item.294 persons completed the questionnaire (44%). 87% expressed a positive attitude towards a QA programme, and 54% thought that the implementation of a nationwide QA programme for endoscopy would be feasible. Positive effects of QA were expected on publicity (62%) and overall quality (70%). Most important QA aspects were aftercare (97%) and patient experiences (96%). Concerns were raised about the time investment (18%) and disclosure of results towards media (24%). Team assessment showed good scores on `team working' with a mean score of 1.97. Lower scores were given to the `wider organization' (3.00) and `team process' (2.42).Endoscopy personnel have a positive attitude towards a QA programme. Besides, the team culture and its leadership are ready for the implementation of a QA programme. Efforts should be made to improve team processes and the relation with the wider organisation to ensure an optimal team culture, aimed at quality improvement.

SUBMITTER: de Jonge V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5517259 | biostudies-other | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWith the outbreak of the Corona pandemic, the LübEcker longitudinal study on infections with SARS-CoV-2 (ELISA study) was conducted in the Lübeck area to provide information on the prevalence, unreported cases and symptoms of COVID-19. The aim of the present study is to evaluate defined structure and process indictors of the study conduct of the ELISA study by subjects.MethodsAfter defining and operationalizing participant-oriented quality indicators, 3,710 participants were surveyed online via LimeSurvey. Indicators defined were access to the study, time requirements, reporting of findings, ratings of study apps used, communication, study center, tolerability of sample collection, and willingness to re-participate. In addition, comments on push and pull factors of study participation could be made. The evaluation was both quantitative and qualitative.Results45% of the follow-up respondents (n=1,684) answered the questions on the defined structural and process indicators. In the quantitative part of the survey, tolerability of venous blood sampling was rated as significantly better than that of nasopharyngeal smears. 91% of the follow-up respondents welcomed the offer to view their findings in the personal results portal. Overall, the indicators were mostly rated positively. According to the qualitative data, the study participants found the win-win situation of the test opportunity to contribute to research, the local relevance of the study, the small incentives, and the low-threshold nature of the study registration to be positive aspects of the study. According to the quantitative data, participants would like to see an improvement in the usability of the digital applications for more user-friendly identification solutions, reminder functions, announcements of software updates and avoidance of double entries.DiscussionThe defined structure and process indicators appear to be suitable for assessing the quality of study implementation from the subjects' point of view and indicate a good quality of study implementation under pandemic conditions. The lowest participation rate (75%) was measured at the fifth test time of strongly declining COVID-19 infections during the summer holidays in Schleswig-Holstein. Obviously, the benefit and meaningfulness of further study participation as well as competing factors were weighted differently by the subjects at this point. The follow-up survey points to a variety of options for motivating participants to maintain a high level of participation. Possible limitations are that a non-response bias cannot be excluded for the follow-up survey and that no suitable standardised questionnaire was available.ConclusionThe present study provides recommendations for the planning of future cohort studies. It makes sense to continuously evaluate the motives for participation or non-participation and to explicitly consider them in the course of the study. Therefore, the definition of general quality indicators for the practical implementation of studies seems desirable. Positive experiences of the participants in connection with study participation are important, such as good time management, short response times, technical support offers and additional services such as a study homepage with frequently asked questions (FAQs), timely individual notifications of results and transparent, generally understandable information about study results during the study. Digital solutions are well received, but can still be improved for specific studies.

Project description:Critically ill patients with requirement of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) represent a growing intensive care unit (ICU) population. Optimal CRRT delivery demands continuous communication between stakeholders, iterative adjustment of therapy, and quality assurance systems. This Quality Improvement (QI) study reports the development, implementation and outcomes of a quality assurance system to support the provision of CRRT in the ICU. This study was carried out at the University of Kentucky Medical Center between September 2016 and June 2019. We implemented a quality assurance system using a step-wise approach based on the (a) assembly of a multidisciplinary team, (b) standardization of the CRRT protocol, (c) creation of electronic CRRT flowsheets, (d) selection, monitoring and reporting of quality metrics of CRRT deliverables, and (e) enhancement of education. We examined 34-month data comprising 1185 adult patients on CRRT (~ 7420 patient-days of CRRT) and tracked selected QI outcomes/metrics of CRRT delivery. As a result of the QI interventions, we increased the number of multidisciplinary experts in the CRRT team and ensured a continuum of education to health care professionals. We maximized to 100% the use of continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration and doubled the percentage of patients using regional citrate anticoagulation. The delivered CRRT effluent dose (~ 30 ml/kg/h) and the delivered/prescribed effluent dose ratio (~ 0.89) remained stable within the study period. The average filter life increased from 26 to 31 h (p = 0.020), reducing the mean utilization of filters per patient from 3.56 to 2.67 (p = 0.054) despite similar CRRT duration and mortality rates. The number of CRRT access alarms per treatment day was reduced by 43%. The improvement in filter utilization translated into ~ 20,000 USD gross savings in filter cost per 100-patient receiving CRRT. We satisfactorily developed and implemented a quality assurance system for the provision of CRRT in the ICU that enabled sustainable tracking of CRRT deliverables and reduced filter resource utilization at our institution.

Dataset Information

Quality assurance in the endoscopy unit: the view of endoscopy personnel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets