RESUMO
Objetivo: desarrollar un panel de indicadores para monitorizar la actividad de los programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias. Métodos: un grupo multidisciplinar formado por expertos en el manejo de la infección en urgencias y en la implantación de programas de optimización de uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) evaluó una propuesta de indicadores utilizando una metodología Delphi modificada. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos clasificó la relevancia de cada indicador propuesto en 2 dimensiones (repercusión asistencial y facilidad de implantación) y 2 atributos (nivel de priorización y periodicidad de medida). La segunda ronda se realizó a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas y nuevos indicadores sugeridos por los participantes. Los expertos efectuaron modificaciones en el orden de priorización y calificaron los nuevos indicadores propuestos de la misma manera que en la primera ronda. Resultados: se propusieron un total de 61 potenciales indicadores divididos en 4 grupos: indicadores de consumo, microbiológicos, de proceso y de resultado. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, 31 indicadores fueron clasificados como de alta prioridad, 25 de prioridad intermedia y 5 de baja prioridad. Además se generaron 19 nuevos indicadores. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron los 61 indicadores inicialmente propuestos y adicionalmente se incorporaron 18 nuevos: 11 como de alta prioridad, 3 como de intermedia y 4 como de baja prioridad. Conclusiones: los expertos consensuaron un panel de indicadores PROA adaptado a los servicios de urgencias priorizados por nivel de relevancia como un elemento de ayuda para el desarrollo de estos programas, que contribuirá a monitorizar la adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades.(AU)
Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Gestão de Antimicrobianos , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Anti-Infecciosos/administração & dosagem , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à SaúdeRESUMO
Objetivo: desarrollar un panel de indicadores para monitorizar la actividad de los programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias. Métodos: un grupo multidisciplinar formado por expertos en el manejo de la infección en urgencias y en la implantación de programas de optimización de uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) evaluó una propuesta de indicadores utilizando una metodología Delphi modificada. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos clasificó la relevancia de cada indicador propuesto en 2 dimensiones (repercusión asistencial y facilidad de implantación) y 2 atributos (nivel de priorización y periodicidad de medida). La segunda ronda se realizó a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas y nuevos indicadores sugeridos por los participantes. Los expertos efectuaron modificaciones en el orden de priorización y calificaron los nuevos indicadores propuestos de la misma manera que en la primera ronda. Resultados: se propusieron un total de 61 potenciales indicadores divididos en 4 grupos: indicadores de consumo, microbiológicos, de proceso y de resultado. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, 31 indicadores fueron clasificados como de alta prioridad, 25 de prioridad intermedia y 5 de baja prioridad. Además se generaron 19 nuevos indicadores. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron los 61 indicadores inicialmente propuestos y adicionalmente se incorporaron 18 nuevos: 11 como de alta prioridad, 3 como de intermedia y 4 como de baja prioridad. Conclusiones: los expertos consensuaron un panel de indicadores PROA adaptado a los servicios de urgencias priorizados por nivel de relevancia como un elemento de ayuda para el desarrollo de estos programas, que contribuirá a monitorizar la adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades.(AU)
Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Gestão de Antimicrobianos , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Anti-Infecciosos/administração & dosagem , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à SaúdeRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritisation level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritisation order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. RESULTS: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analysing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. CONCLUSIONS: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP Indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritised by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Gestão de Antimicrobianos , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Humanos , Gestão de Antimicrobianos/métodos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Serviço Hospitalar de EmergênciaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. RESULTS: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. CONCLUSIONS: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.
RESUMO
No disponible
