Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
Rev Saude Publica ; 57: 27, 2023.
Article in English, Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37132732

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To validate a set of indicators for monitoring the quality of surgical procedures in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). METHODS: Validation study developed in 5 stages: 1) literature review; 2) prioritization of indicators; 3) content validation of indicators by RAND/UCLA consensus method; 4) pilot study for reliability analysis; and 5) development of instruction for tabulation of outcome indicators for monitoring via official information systems. RESULTS: From the literature review, 217 indicators of surgical quality were identified. The excluded indicators were: those based on scientific evidence lower than 1A, similar, specific, which corresponded to sentinel events; and those that did not apply to the SUS context. Twenty-six indicators with a high level of scientific evidence were submitted to expert consensus. Twenty-two indicators were validated, of which 14 process indicators and 8 outcome indicators with content validation index ≥80%. Of the validated process indicators, 6 were considered substantially reliable (Kappa coefficient between 0.6 and 0.8; p < 0.05) and 2 had almost perfect reliability (Kappa coefficient > 0.8, p < 0.05), when the inter-rater agreement was analyzed. One could measure and establish tabulation mechanism for TabWin for 7 outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to the development of a set of potentially effective surgical indicators for monitoring the quality of care and patient safety in SUS hospital services.


Subject(s)
Quality Indicators, Health Care , Quality of Health Care , Humans , Brazil , Pilot Projects , Reproducibility of Results
2.
Rev. saúde pública (Online) ; 57: 27, 2023. tab, graf
Article in English, Portuguese | LILACS | ID: biblio-1432152

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To validate a set of indicators for monitoring the quality of surgical procedures in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). METHODS Validation study developed in 5 stages: 1) literature review; 2) prioritization of indicators; 3) content validation of indicators by RAND/UCLA consensus method; 4) pilot study for reliability analysis; and 5) development of instruction for tabulation of outcome indicators for monitoring via official information systems. RESULTS From the literature review, 217 indicators of surgical quality were identified. The excluded indicators were: those based on scientific evidence lower than 1A, similar, specific, which corresponded to sentinel events; and those that did not apply to the SUS context. Twenty-six indicators with a high level of scientific evidence were submitted to expert consensus. Twenty-two indicators were validated, of which 14 process indicators and 8 outcome indicators with content validation index ≥80%. Of the validated process indicators, 6 were considered substantially reliable (Kappa coefficient between 0.6 and 0.8; p < 0.05) and 2 had almost perfect reliability (Kappa coefficient > 0.8, p < 0.05), when the inter-rater agreement was analyzed. One could measure and establish tabulation mechanism for TabWin for 7 outcome indicators. CONCLUSION The study contributes to the development of a set of potentially effective surgical indicators for monitoring the quality of care and patient safety in SUS hospital services.


RESUMO OBJETIVO Validar um conjunto de indicadores para monitoramento da qualidade dos procedimentos cirúrgicos no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). MÉTODOS Estudo de validação desenvolvido em 5 etapas: 1) revisão de literatura; 2) priorização de indicadores; 3) validação de conteúdo dos indicadores por método de consenso RAND/UCLA; 4) estudo piloto para análise da confiabilidade; e 5) desenvolvimento de instrutivo para tabulação dos indicadores de resultado para monitoramento via sistemas de informações oficiais. RESULTADOS A partir da revisão de literatura, foram identificados 217 indicadores de qualidade cirúrgica. Os indicadores excluídos foram: indicadores baseados em evidências científicas inferiores a 1A, similares, específicos, que correspondiam a eventos sentinelas; e aqueles que não se aplicavam ao contexto do SUS. Foram submetidos ao consenso de especialistas 26 indicadores com alto nível de evidência científica. Foram validados 22 indicadores, dos quais 14 indicadores de processo e 8 indicadores de resultado com índice de validação de conteúdo ≥80%. Dos indicadores de processo validados, 6 foram considerados confiáveis substancialmente (Coeficiente de Kappa entre 0,6 e 0,8; p < 0,05) e 2 tiveram confiabilidade quase perfeita (coeficiente de Kappa > 0,8, p < 0,05), quando analisada a concordância interavaliador. Foi possível mensurar e estabelecer mecanismo de tabulação para TabWin para 7 indicadores de resultado. CONCLUSÃO O estudo contribui com o desenvolvimento de um conjunto de indicadores cirúrgicos potencialmente eficazes para o monitoramento da qualidade do cuidado e segurança do paciente nos serviços hospitalares do SUS.


Subject(s)
Quality of Health Care , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Unified Health System , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Patient Safety
3.
Natal; s.n; 20210000. 106 p. tab, ilus.
Thesis in Portuguese | BBO - Dentistry | ID: biblio-1435922

ABSTRACT

O monitoramento da assistência à saúde é uma atividade essencial para qualquer atividade de melhoria contínua da qualidade. Entretanto, o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) não dispõe de um conjunto de indicadores para monitorar a qualidade do cuidado cirúrgico, conferindo fragilidade e dificuldade à gestão do cuidado de saúde, face à inexistência de informações para a realização de ciclos de melhoria da qualidade. Esta lacuna justifica a pesquisa realizada, que tem por objetivo validar um conjunto de indicadores para fins de monitoramento da qualidade dos procedimentos cirúrgicos no âmbito do SUS. Utilizou-se como método o estudo metodológico de validação de indicadores de qualidade desenvolvido em 5 etapas: 1) Revisão de literatura; 2) Seleção dos indicadores para consenso; 3) Validação de conteúdo dos indicadores por método de consenso RAND/UCLA; 4) Estudo piloto para análise da confiabilidade; e 5) Desenvolvimento de instrutivo para tabulação dos indicadores de resultado para que possam ser monitorados via sistemas de informações oficiais. A partir da revisão de literatura, foram identificados 217 indicadores de qualidade cirúrgicos. Os indicadores considerados baseados em evidências científicas inferiores 1A, indicadores similares, específicos, que correspondiam a eventos sentinelas e aqueles que não se aplicavam ao contexto do SUS foram excluídos. Foram levados, para o consenso de especialistas, 26 indicadores com alto nível de evidência científica. Após utilização do Método de consenso RAND/UCLA, foram validados 14 indicadores de processo e 8 indicadores de resultado. Seis indicadores de processo foram considerados confiáveis substancialmente (Coeficiente de Kappa entre 0,6 e 0,8; p<0,05) e 2 tiveram confiabilidade quase perfeita (Coeficiente de Kappa> 0,8, p<0,05) quando analisada a concordância interavaliador. Foi possível mensurar e estabelecer mecanismo de tabulação para o TabWin, utilizando os dados do Sistema de Informações Hospitalares do SUS, para 7 indicadores de resultado. O estudo contribui com o desenvolvimento de um conjunto de indicadores de qualidade no âmbito cirúrgico que se traduz como mecanismo eficaz de mensuração do desempenho e da qualidade dos serviços ofertados pela rede de serviços hospitalares do Brasil (AU).


Monitoring healthcare is an essential activity for any continuous quality improvement activity. However, the Unified Health System (SUS) does not have a set of indicators to monitor the quality of surgical care, making health care management fragile and difficult, given the lack of information to carry out quality improvement cycles. This gap justifies the research carried out, which aimsto validate a set of indicators for monitoring the quality ofsurgical procedureswithin the SUS. The methodological study of validation of quality indicators developed in 5 stages was used as method: 1) Literature review; 2) Selection of indicators for consensus; 3) Validation of the content of the indicators by the RAND/UCLA consensus method; 4) Pilotstudy to analyze reliability and and 5) Development of instructions for tabulating result indicators. From the literature review, 217 surgical quality indicators were identified.Indicators considered based on scientific evidence inferior to 1A, similar, specific indicators that corresponded to sentinel events and those that did not apply to the SUS context were excluded. Twenty-six indicators with a high level of scientific evidence were taken to the consensus of experts. After using the RAND/UCLA Consensus Method, 14 process indicators and 8 outcome indicators were validated. Six process indicators were considered substantially reliable (Kappa coefficient between 0.6 and 0.8; p<0.05) and 2 had almost perfect reliability (Kappa coefficient> 0.8, p<0.05) when analyzed the inter-rater agreement. It was possible to measure and establish a tabulation mechanism for TabWin using data from the SUS Hospital Information System for 7 result indicators. The study contributes to the development of a set of quality indicators in the surgical field that translates into an effectivemechanism for measuring the performance and quality of services offered by the network of hospital services in Brazil (AU).


Subject(s)
Humans , Quality of Health Care , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Patient Safety , Unified Health System
4.
Rev Saude Publica ; 54: 21, 2020.
Article in English, Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32049211

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the development and the validity analysis of the Assessment of Risk Management in Health Care Questionnaire (AGRASS). METHODS: This is a validation study of a measurement instrument following the stages: 1) Development of conceptual model and items; 2) Formal multidisciplinary assessment; 3) Nominal group for validity analysis with national specialists; 4) Development of software and national pilot study in 62 Brazilian hospitals 5) Delphi for validity analysis with the users of the questionnaire. In stages 3 and 5, the items were judged based on face validity, content validity, and utility and viability, by a 1-7 Likert scale (cut-off point: median < 6). Accuracy and reliability of the questionnaire were analyzed with the Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: The initial version of the instrument (98 items) was adapted during stages 1 to 3 for the final version with 40 items, which were considered relevant, of adequate content, useful, and viable. The instrument has 2 dimensions and 9 subdimensions, and the items have closed-ended questions (yes or no). The software for the automatic collection and analysis generates indicators, tables, and automatic graphs for the assessed institution and aggregated data. The adjustment indices confirmed a bi-dimensional model composed of structure and process (X2/gl = 1.070, RMSEA ≤ 0.05 = 0.847, TLI = 0.972), with high reliability for the AGRASS Questionnaire (α = 0.94) and process dimension (α = 0.93), and adequate for the structural dimension (α = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The AGRASS Questionnaire is a potentially useful instrument for the surveillance and monitoring of the risk management and patient safety in health services.


Subject(s)
Patient Safety/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Risk Management/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Adult , Brazil , Factor Analysis, Statistical , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Management/standards
5.
Rev. saúde pública (Online) ; 54: 21, 2020. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1058889

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the development and the validity analysis of the Assessment of Risk Management in Health Care Questionnaire (AGRASS). METHODS This is a validation study of a measurement instrument following the stages: 1) Development of conceptual model and items; 2) Formal multidisciplinary assessment; 3) Nominal group for validity analysis with national specialists; 4) Development of software and national pilot study in 62 Brazilian hospitals 5) Delphi for validity analysis with the users of the questionnaire. In stages 3 and 5, the items were judged based on face validity, content validity, and utility and viability, by a 1-7 Likert scale (cut-off point: median < 6). Accuracy and reliability of the questionnaire were analyzed with the Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS The initial version of the instrument (98 items) was adapted during stages 1 to 3 for the final version with 40 items, which were considered relevant, of adequate content, useful, and viable. The instrument has 2 dimensions and 9 subdimensions, and the items have closed-ended questions (yes or no). The software for the automatic collection and analysis generates indicators, tables, and automatic graphs for the assessed institution and aggregated data. The adjustment indices confirmed a bi-dimensional model composed of structure and process (X2/gl = 1.070, RMSEA ≤ 0.05 = 0.847, TLI = 0.972), with high reliability for the AGRASS Questionnaire (α = 0.94) and process dimension (α = 0.93), and adequate for the structural dimension (α = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS The AGRASS Questionnaire is a potentially useful instrument for the surveillance and monitoring of the risk management and patient safety in health services.


RESUMO OBJETIVO O estudo objetiva descrever a construção e análise da validade do Questionário Avaliação da Gestão de Riscos Assistenciais em Serviços de Saúde (AGRASS). MÉTODOS Trata-se de estudo de validação de um instrumento de medida nas etapas: 1. construção do modelo conceitual e itens; 2. apreciação formal multidisciplinar; 3. grupo nominal para análise da validade com especialistas da esfera nacional; 4. desenvolvimento de softwares e estudo-piloto nacional em 62 hospitais do Brasil; 5. Delphi para análise da validade com utilizadores do questionário. Nas etapas 3 e 5, os itens foram julgados quanto à validade de face e conteúdo, utilidade e viabilidade, em uma escala Likert de 1 a 7 (ponto de corte: mediana < 6). A validade de construto e a confiabilidade foram analisadas com análise fatorial confirmatória e coeficientes α de Cronbach. RESULTADOS A versão inicial do instrumento (98 itens) foi adaptada durante as etapas 1 a 3 para a versão com 40 itens considerados relevantes, de conteúdo adequado, úteis e viáveis. O instrumento tem duas dimensões e nove subdimensões, e os itens têm opção de resposta fechada (sim ou não). Os softwares para coleta e análise automática geram indicadores, tabelas e gráficos automáticos para a instituição avaliada e conjuntos agregados. Os índices de ajuste confirmaram o modelo bidimensional de estrutura e processo (X2/gl = 1,070, RMSEA ≤ 0,05 = 0,847; TLI = 0,972), havendo confiabilidade alta para o Questionário AGRASS (α = 0,94) e a dimensão processo (α = 0,93) e aceitável para a dimensão estrutura (α = 0,70). CONCLUSÃO O Questionário AGRASS é um instrumento potencialmente útil para a vigilância e monitoramento da gestão de riscos e segurança do paciente em serviços de saúde.


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Quality of Health Care/standards , Risk Management/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Patient Safety/standards , Risk Management/standards , Brazil , Pilot Projects , Reproducibility of Results , Factor Analysis, Statistical , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...