Base de dados : MEDLINE
Pesquisa : F01.829.316.549.690 [Categoria DeCS]
Referências encontradas : 1378 [refinar]
Mostrando: 1 .. 10   no formato [Detalhado]

página 1 de 138 ir para página                         

  1 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:28688639
[Au] Autor:Scantling D; Teichman A; Kucejko R; McCracken B; Eakins J; Burns R
[Ad] Endereço:Hahnemann University Hospital, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Dane.Scantling@gmail.com.
[Ti] Título:Identifying preventable trauma death: does autopsy serve a role in the peer review process?
[So] Source:J Surg Res;215:140-145, 2017 Jul.
[Is] ISSN:1095-8673
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:BACKGROUND: Missing life-threatening injuries is a persistent concern in any trauma program. Autopsy is a tool routinely utilized to determine an otherwise occult cause of death in many fields of medicine. It has been adopted as a required component of the trauma peer review (PR) process by both the American College of Surgeons and the Pennsylvania Trauma Foundation. We hypothesized that autopsy would not identify preventable deaths for augmentation of the PR process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review using our institutional trauma registry of all trauma deaths between January 2012 and December 2015 was performed. Per the protocol of our level 1 center, all trauma deaths are referred to the medical examiner (ME) and reviewed as part of the trauma PR process. All autopsy results are evaluated with relation to injury severity score (ISS), trauma injury severity score (TRISS), nature of death, and injuries added by autopsy. ME reports are reviewed by the trauma medical director and referred back to the trauma PR committee if warranted. Trauma injury severity score methodology determines the probability of survival (Ps) given injuries identified. A patient with Ps of ≥0.5 is expected to survive their injuries. Cohorts were created based on when in the hospitalization death occurred: <24 h, or immediate death; 24 to 48 h, or early death; and death >48 h, or late death. A comparison was conducted between the ISS and Ps calculated during trauma workup and on autopsy using chi-square and Fischer's exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 173 patient deaths were referred to the ME with 123 responses received. Average length of stay was 2.61 d. Twenty-six patients had autopsy declined by the ME, 25 received an external examination only, and 72 received a full autopsy. Autopsy identified one case that was reconsidered in PR (P = 0.603) and added diagnoses, but not injuries, to one patient in the early death group (P = 1) and two in the late death group (P = 0.4921). No preventable cause of death was uncovered, and educational use was minimal. Autopsy did identify injuries in seven cases that were initially not consistent with expected mortality, but postmortem Ps was consistent with expected mortality (P = 0.254). Mean ISS was 34.48, and mean Ps was 0.275 among all patients. The most commonly identified injuries added by autopsy were rib injuries, lung injuries, and intracranial hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: Autopsy does not identify causes of preventable in an otherwise highly functioning trauma program and may be a poor use of institutional resources. In fact, it adds few diagnoses when death occurs after a full trauma assessment has had time to take place. Autopsy may be of use to identify protocol failure in maturing trauma programs, to give answers to grieving families and in select situations where death was unanticipated even after a full evaluation took place.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Autopsia
Causas de Morte
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares/métodos
Ferimentos e Lesões/mortalidade
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Adulto
Idoso
Feminino
Seres Humanos
Escala de Gravidade do Ferimento
Masculino
Meia-Idade
Pennsylvania
Sistema de Registros
Estudos Retrospectivos
Centros de Traumatologia/normas
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1710
[Cu] Atualização por classe:171003
[Lr] Data última revisão:
171003
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:170710
[St] Status:MEDLINE


  2 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:28662046
[Au] Autor:Almquist M; von Allmen RS; Carradice D; Oosterling SJ; McFarlane K; Wijnhoven B
[Ad] Endereço:Dept of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Institution of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
[Ti] Título:A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.
[So] Source:PLoS One;12(6):e0179031, 2017.
[Is] ISSN:1932-6203
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:BACKGROUND: Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. METHODS: In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Sistemas On-Line
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Adulto
Feminino
Seres Humanos
Masculino
Meia-Idade
Estudos Prospectivos
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1709
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170928
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170928
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:170630
[St] Status:MEDLINE
[do] DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0179031


  3 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:28225512
[Au] Autor:Pineda C; Sandoval H; Sheen R; Muñoz-Louis R
[Ad] Endereço:From the *Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico; †PANLAR Executive Secretariat, 2014-2016; and ‡Hospital Docente Padre Billini, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
[Ti] Título:PANLAR Presidency, First Self-Assessment Report 2014-2016: Challenges, Opportunities, and Results.
[So] Source:J Clin Rheumatol;23(2):107-112, 2017 Mar.
[Is] ISSN:1536-7355
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:We present here the first PANLAR Presidency Self-Assessment Report 2014-2016, emphasizing the challenges, opportunities, and results achieved in terms of (1) governance, (2) education and scientific research, (3) finance, and (4) communications throughout this tenure. The main result must be understood as a strategic planning exercise that strengthened institutional responsibility in policies, decisions, and actions, thanks to the teamwork of Latin America's National Rheumatology Societies, the PANLAR Executive Committee, and PANLAR Board Members.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Objetivos Organizacionais
Melhoria de Qualidade/organização & administração
Reumatologia
Sociedades Médicas
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Seres Humanos
América Latina/epidemiologia
Determinação de Necessidades de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
Relatório de Pesquisa
Reumatologia/métodos
Reumatologia/organização & administração
Reumatologia/estatística & dados numéricos
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1711
[Cu] Atualização por classe:171101
[Lr] Data última revisão:
171101
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:170223
[St] Status:MEDLINE
[do] DOI:10.1097/RHU.0000000000000515


  4 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:28118165
[Au] Autor:Chin M; Lagasse RS
[Ad] Endereço:Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
[Ti] Título:Assessment of competence: developing trends and ethical considerations.
[So] Source:Curr Opin Anaesthesiol;30(2):236-241, 2017 Apr.
[Is] ISSN:1473-6500
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores new concepts in competency assessment in anesthesiology, the associated ethical challenges, and directions for new research. RECENT FINDINGS: Many new tools for the assessment of competence are currently in development to address changes in medical education curricula. The assessment of competence currently focuses on technical skills, nontechnical skills, and the interaction of both through the use of simulation, with increasing emphasis on validity and reliability testing. SUMMARY: The search for objective measures of competence is well underway. Current methods require substantial investment of resources, and further research into more efficient and financially feasible tools of assessment is needed. As these assessments become more common in use, the ethical challenges raised by defining competency in high-stakes clinical practice situations will need to be addressed.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Anestesiologia/educação
Competência Clínica
Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/tendências
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares/ética
Treinamento por Simulação/economia
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Anestesia/métodos
Anestesiologia/ética
Currículo/tendências
Avaliação Educacional
Seres Humanos
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares/tendências
Treinamento por Simulação/métodos
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE; REVIEW
[Em] Mês de entrada:1705
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170517
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170517
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:170125
[St] Status:MEDLINE
[do] DOI:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000431


  5 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:27816360
[Au] Autor:Brunskill K; Nguyen TK; Boldt RG; Louie AV; Warner A; Marks LB; Palma DA
[Ad] Endereço:Department of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
[Ti] Título:Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature.
[So] Source:Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys;97(1):27-34, 2017 Jan 01.
[Is] ISSN:1879-355X
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:PURPOSE: Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). RESULTS: The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Órgãos em Risco/diagnóstico por imagem
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde
Dosagem Radioterapêutica
Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador/estatística & dados numéricos
Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador/normas
Carga Tumoral
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Seres Humanos
Tratamentos com Preservação do Órgão/estatística & dados numéricos
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares/normas
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE; REVIEW
[Em] Mês de entrada:1707
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170713
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170713
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:161107
[St] Status:MEDLINE


  6 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:27720701
[Au] Autor:Mitchell JD; Chesnut TJ; Eastham DV; Demandante CN; Hoopes DJ
[Ad] Endereço:Joint Radiation Oncology Center, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, California. Electronic address: james.mitchell.6@us.af.mil.
[Ti] Título:Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.
[So] Source:Pract Radiat Oncol;7(1):50-56, 2017 Jan - Feb.
[Is] ISSN:1879-8519
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:PURPOSE: In 2012, we instituted detailed prospective peer review of new cases. We present the outcomes of peer review on patient management and time required for peer review. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Peer review rounds were held 3 to 4 days weekly and required 2 physicians to review pertinent information from the electronic medical record and treatment planning system. Eight aspects were reviewed for each case: 1) workup and staging; 2) treatment intent and prescription; 3) position, immobilization, and simulation; 4) motion assessment and management; 5) target contours; 6) normal tissue contours; 7) target dosimetry; and 8) normal tissue dosimetry. Cases were marked as, "Meets standard of care," "Variation," or "Major deviation." Changes in treatment plan were noted. As our process evolved, we recorded the time spent reviewing each case. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2014, we collected peer review data on 442 of 465 (95%) radiation therapy patients treated in our hospital-based clinic. Overall, 91 (20.6%) of the cases were marked as having a variation, and 3 (0.7%) as major deviation. Forty-two (9.5%) of the cases were altered after peer review. An overall peer review score of "Variation" or "Major deviation" was highly associated with a change in treatment plan (P < .01). Changes in target contours were recommended in 10% of cases. Gastrointestinal cases were significantly associated with a change in treatment plan after peer review. Indicators on position, immobilization, simulation, target contours, target dosimetry, motion management, normal tissue contours, and normal tissue dosimetry were significantly associated with a change in treatment plan. The mean time spent on each case was 7 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective peer review is feasible in a community radiation oncology practice. Our process led to changes in 9.5% of cases. Peer review should focus on technical factors such as target contours and dosimetry. Peer review required 7 minutes per case.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
Radioterapia (Especialidade)
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Seres Humanos
Estudos Prospectivos
Dosagem Radioterapêutica
Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1704
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170419
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170419
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:161011
[St] Status:MEDLINE


  7 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:28334497
[Au] Autor:Parsons S; Waldron S; Campbell F; Pinto MS; Sumnik Z; Gerasimidi-Vazeou A; SWEET Group
[Ad] Endereço:SWEET Peer Review Programme, Independent Consultant, Kent, UK.
[Ti] Título:The development and implementation of the SWEET Peer Review Programme for pediatric diabetes centres.
[So] Source:Pediatr Diabetes;17 Suppl 23:16-23, 2016 Oct.
[Is] ISSN:1399-5448
[Cp] País de publicação:Denmark
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:This paper describes the background to the development, implementation, and subsequent management of a programme of peer review of Pediatric Diabetes Centres belonging to the SWEET Group The paper summarizes the overall purpose of the programme, lists the principles upon which the programme is founded, and sets out the intended outcomes of the programme Details are given of the way in which the programme is delivered and summarizes the key findings from the 16 centres reviewed to date Finally the paper highlights the feedback that has been received from those who have been reviewed and those who have acted as reviewers and discusses ways in which the programme can be further developed in the future.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Diabetes Mellitus/terapia
Pediatria
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Adolescente
Criança
Seres Humanos
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1710
[Cu] Atualização por classe:171019
[Lr] Data última revisão:
171019
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:170324
[St] Status:MEDLINE
[do] DOI:10.1111/pedi.12434


  8 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:28233533
[Au] Autor:Moriarity AK; Hawkins CM; Geis JR; Dreyer KJ; Kamer AP; Khandheria P; Morey J; Whitfill J; Wiggins RH; Itri JN
[Ad] Endereço:Advanced Radiology Services, PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Division of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Electronic address: andymoriarity@gmail.com.
[Ti] Título:Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions.
[So] Source:J Am Coll Radiol;13(12 Pt A):1519-1524, 2016 Dec.
[Is] ISSN:1558-349X
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:The current practice of peer review within radiology is well developed and widely implemented compared with other medical specialties. However, there are many factors that limit current peer review practices from reducing diagnostic errors and improving patient care. The development of "meaningful peer review" requires a transition away from compliance toward quality improvement, whereby the information and insights gained facilitate education and drive systematic improvements that reduce the frequency and impact of diagnostic error. The next generation of peer review requires significant improvements in IT functionality and integration, enabling features such as anonymization, adjudication by multiple specialists, categorization and analysis of errors, tracking, feedback, and easy export into teaching files and other media that require strong partnerships with vendors. In this article, the authors assess various peer review practices, with focused discussion on current limitations and future needs for meaningful peer review in radiology.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Erros de Diagnóstico/prevenção & controle
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares/normas
Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/normas
Radiologia/normas
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Competência Clínica/normas
Previsões
Seres Humanos
Melhoria de Qualidade
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE; REVIEW
[Em] Mês de entrada:1709
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170918
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170918
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:170225
[St] Status:MEDLINE


  9 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record next record last record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:27943327
[Au] Autor:Paterson C; McLuckie S; Yew-Fung C; Tang B; Lang S; Nabi G
[Ad] Endereço:Academic Section of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.
[Ti] Título:Videotaping of surgical procedures and outcomes following extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer.
[So] Source:J Surg Oncol;114(8):1016-1023, 2016 Dec.
[Is] ISSN:1096-9098
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:BACKGROUND: Video-recording of emerging minimally invasive surgical procedures is likely to become an integral component of patient record-keeping in the future for prostate cancer treatment. No prior work has shown the impact of videotaping of laparoscopic prostatectomy on patient outcomes. Our aim was to determine correlation between independent peer review of videotaping quality scores of extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy (ELRP) with complications, re-admissions, functional, and early oncological outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a single-institution prospective cohort study comparing videotaping quality scores with the outcomes of ELRP in men with localized prostate cancer. Videotaping of surgical procedures were scored by two experienced laparoscopic surgeons using a validated scoring method. Validated record-linkage methodology and self-reported questionnaires were used to assess surgical complications, re-admissions, functional, and oncological outcomes based on a common identifier called as community health index (CHI) number. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between the different covariates with statistical significance considered at P < 0.05. Multivariate analyses assessed oncological outcomes (positive surgical margins/biochemical recurrence), post-operative complications, and re-admission into hospital following initial hospital discharge with quality of surgical procedure. RESULTS: 200 men were recruited into the study. 51 (25.5%) participants had post-operative complications. Record-linkage methodology identified 18 (9%) participants had re-admissions within 90 days of the procedure. 13 (6.5%) of these men required percutaneous drainage with hospital stay following re-admissions ranged between 3 and 12 days. 10 (5.0%) participants had intra/peri-operative complications. 23 (11.5%) men reported to primary care physicians for various indications. Higher quality surgical technique videotaped scores (assessed by independent peer review) had a significant correlation with early continence recovery at 3 months post-procedure, (P = 0.013), but lost statistical significance with overall continence at 1 year. No statistical correlation was observed between videotaped scores and oncological outcomes (positive surgical margins/biochemical recurrence), post-operative complications, and readmission into hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of surgical procedure assessed by independent third party videotaping score predicted early resumption of continence following extraperitoenal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, however, it did not predict complications, oncological or functional outcome as assessed using patient reported outcomes at 12 months. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:1016-1023. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Competência Clínica
Laparoscopia
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
Prostatectomia/métodos
Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia
Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/métodos
Gravação em Vídeo
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Idoso
Seguimentos
Seres Humanos
Laparoscopia/normas
Masculino
Meia-Idade
Análise Multivariada
Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos
Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia
Estudos Prospectivos
Prostatectomia/normas
Resultado do Tratamento
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:CLINICAL TRIAL; JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1702
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170213
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170213
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:IM
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:161213
[St] Status:MEDLINE
[do] DOI:10.1002/jso.24484


  10 / 1378 MEDLINE  
              first record previous record
seleciona
para imprimir
Fotocópia
Texto completo
[PMID]:27681516
[Au] Autor:Whitney K; Haag-Heitman B; Chisholm M; Gale S
[Ad] Endereço:Author Affiliations: Surgical, Orthopaedics & Neurosciences, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston (Dr Whitney); Nursing Consulting Partners, Whitefish Bay, WI (Dr Haag-Heitman); MGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown (Dr Chisholm); and Organization of Nurse Leaders of MA, RI & NH, Woburn, MA (Ms Gale).
[Ti] Título:Nursing Peer Review Perceptions and Practices: A Survey of Chief Nurse Executives.
[So] Source:J Nurs Adm;46(10):541-8, 2016 Oct.
[Is] ISSN:1539-0721
[Cp] País de publicação:United States
[La] Idioma:eng
[Ab] Resumo:OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand chief nurse executive perceptions of nursing peer review (NPR) and current NPR practices in their organizations to provide insights and recommendations for the path forward to a robust NPR approach nationally. BACKGROUND: Nursing peer review is a key component of professional nursing practice focused on self-regulation and improving quality and safety. Despite its known benefits, NPR is not broadly disseminated, and how it is currently used and perceived is not well understood. METHODS: A causal-comparison study design was used. A 25-question, Web-based survey was administered to collect data variables. RESULTS: Chief nurse executives perceived NPR as important in improving quality and safety; however, its prevalence was low. Chief nurse executives also reported NPR practices not aligned with the American Nurses Association (ANA) NPR guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that knowledge gaps exist regarding NPR's purpose, outcomes, and alignment with the ANA peer review guidelines. Interventions are needed to address these gaps to further advance NPR adoption nationally.
[Mh] Termos MeSH primário: Competência Clínica/normas
Recursos Humanos de Enfermagem no Hospital/normas
Revisão dos Cuidados de Saúde por Pares
Padrões de Prática em Enfermagem/normas
Melhoria de Qualidade/normas
Gestão da Qualidade Total/organização & administração
[Mh] Termos MeSH secundário: Seres Humanos
Relações Interprofissionais
Autonomia Profissional
[Pt] Tipo de publicação:JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Em] Mês de entrada:1702
[Cu] Atualização por classe:170213
[Lr] Data última revisão:
170213
[Sb] Subgrupo de revista:AIM; IM; N
[Da] Data de entrada para processamento:160930
[St] Status:MEDLINE
[do] DOI:10.1097/NNA.0000000000000399



página 1 de 138 ir para página                         
   


Refinar a pesquisa
  Base de dados : MEDLINE Formulário avançado   

    Pesquisar no campo  
1  
2
3
 
           



Search engine: iAH v2.6 powered by WWWISIS

BIREME/OPAS/OMS - Centro Latino-Americano e do Caribe de Informação em Ciências da Saúde