#16
|
|||
|
|||
[Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]
Making Health Care Safer "Ñäåëàòü ìåäèöèíñêóþ ïîìîùü áåçîïàñíåå" Áîëüøîå ïîëíîòåêñòîâîå ðóêîâîäñòâî (àíãë) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
[Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]
Resources on Appropriate Healthcare Technologies for the Developing World The Report on the 4th IET International Seminar on Appropriate Healthcare Technologies for Developing Countries which was held in London on 23-24 May 2006 can be found. Ñlicking on Read a report on the 4th seminar. You will need to be logged into the website before you can download the report. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The State of Health Quality 2006
National committee for quality assurance Washington pdf ôàéë [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
This database contains literature articles about the costs and/or benefits of health information technology, and is searchable by the user in a variety of ways.
It also contains information about how this database was created. This database was developed by Southern California Evidence Based Practice Center - RAND under a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. It includes scientific data about the implementation of health IT, as documented in studies published through 2003. All studies initially reviewed were screened for data on barriers to adoption and implementation. For this analysis, qualitative studies that were primarily focused on barriers and studies that collected quantitative data on barriers were included. Studies in which barriers were briefly discussed, but were not a primary focus, were excluded. A primary focus on barriers was identified through reviewer consensus. The evidence-based practice report developed by RAND, summarizing the conclusions drawn from this database, can be accessed at [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Welcome to Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
[Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Æóðíàë "Óïðàâëåíèå çäðàâîîõðàíåíèåì"
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Feb;11(5):1-178. A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. Raynor DK, Blenkinsopp A, Knapp P, Grime J, Nicolson DJ, Pollock K, Dorer G, Gilbody S, Dickinson D, Maule AJ, Spoor P. Pharmacy Practice and Medicines Management Group, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, UK. OBJECTIVES: To establish the role and value of written information available to patients about individual medicines from the perspective of patients, carers and professionals. To determine how effective this information is in improving patients' knowledge and understanding of treatment and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases searched to late 2004, experts in information design, and stakeholder workshops (including patients and patient organisations). REVIEW METHODS: Data from selected studies were tabulated and the results were qualitatively synthesised along with findings from the information design and stakeholder workshop strands. RESULTS: Most people do not value the written information they receive. They had concerns about the use of complex language and poor visual presentation and in most cases the research showed that the information did not increase knowledge. The research showed that patients valued written information that was tailored to their individual circumstances and illness, and that contained a balance of harm and benefit information. Most patients wanted to know about any adverse effects that could arise. Patients require information to help decision-making about whether to take a medicine or not and (once taking a medicine) with ongoing decisions about the management of the medicine and interpreting symptoms. Patients did not want written information to be a substitute for spoken information from their prescriber. While not everyone wanted written information, those who did wanted sufficient detail to meet their need. Some health professionals thought that written information for patients should be brief and simple, with concerns about providing side-effect information. They saw increasing compliance as a prime function, in contrast to patients who saw an informed decision not to take a medicine as an acceptable outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a quantitative and qualitative review, an exploration of best practice in information design, plus the input of patients at stakeholder workshops, allowed this review to look at all perspectives. There is a gap between currently provided leaflets and information which patients would value and find more useful. The challenge is to develop methods of provision flexible enough to allow uptake of varying amounts and types of information, depending on needs at different times in an illness. This review has identified a number of areas where future research could be improved in terms of the robustness of its design and conduct, and the use of patient-focused outcomes. The scope for this research includes determining the content, delivery and layout of statutory leaflets that best meet patients' needs, and providing individualised information, which includes both benefit and harm information. In particular, studies of the effectiveness and role and value of Internet-based medicines information are needed. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Áþëëåòåíü áåñïëàòíûõ èíôîðìàöèîííûõ ðåñóðñîâ, Ôåâðàëü 2007 ã.
Èíôîñåòü «Çäîðîâüå Åâðàçèè» [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Èçìåðåíèå ýôôåêòèâíîñòè ïåðâè÷íîé ìåäèöèíñêîé ïîìîùè (Measuring the Performance of Primary Health Care) (íà àíãë.ÿç.) Àâòîð: Óíèâåðñèòåò Áðèòàíñêîé Êîëóìáèè. Öåíòð èññëåäîâàíèé â îáëàñòè ìåäèöèíñêèõ óñëóã è ïîëèòèêè çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ (University of British Columbia. Centre for Health Services and Policy Research). Îïèñàíèå: “… Ââèäó ñâîåé êëþ÷åâîé ðîëè, ïåðâè÷íàÿ ìåäèöèíñêàÿ ïîìîùü (ÏÌÏ) â òå÷åíèå äëèòåëüíîãî âðåìåíè áûëà â öåíòðå ìåðîïðèÿòèé ïî åå îáíîâëåíèþ, è íå òàê äàâíî îíà óëó÷øèëàñü â ðåçóëüòàòå ñåðüåçíûõ ïðàâèòåëüñòâåííûõ èíâåñòèöèé. Òåì íå ìåíåå... â Êàíàäå îòñóòñòâóåò ñàìàÿ ýëåìåíòàðíàÿ âîçìîæíîñòü èçìåðåíèÿ è ìîíèòîðèðîâàíèÿ íàøåé ñèñòåìû ÏÌÏ. Íàì ìàëî èçâåñòíî î òîì, êàê ñòðóêòóðèðîâàíû ñèñòåìû ÏÌÏ â ðàçëè÷íûõ ïðîâèíöèÿõ Êàíàäû, êàê ðåàëèçóþòñÿ óñëóãè ïî îêàçàíèþ ÏÌÏ è î òîì, íàñêîëüêî ýôôåêòèâíû ýòè óñëóãè.” Êàê ïîëó÷èòü: ×åðåç Èíòåðíåò â ôîðìàòå PDF [37 ñ.] URL: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Ðåãóëèðîâàíèå ÷àñòíîãî ìåäèöèíñêîãî ñòðàõîâàíèÿ â Åâðîïåéñêîì Ñîþçå: âëèÿíèÿ çàêîíîäàòåëüñòâà îáùåãî ðûíêà è ñîðåâíîâàòåëüíîé ïîëèòèêè. (Regulating private health insurance in the European Union: the implications of single market legislation and competition policy) (2006) (íà àíãë.ÿç.) Àâòîð: Ñàðà Òîìñîí, Ýëèàñ Ìîññèàëîñ (Sarah Thomson, Elias Mossialos). Ëîíäîíñêàÿ øêîëà ýêîíîìèêè è ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ íàóê. Îïèñàíèå: Ðàáî÷èé äîêóìåíò No. 4/2006. “….Äàííûé äîêóìåíò ðàññìàòðèâàåò âëèÿíèÿ åäèíîãî ðûíêà ñòðàõîâûõ óñëóã íà ðåãóëèðîâàíèå ÷àñòíîãî ìåäèöèíñêîãî ñòðàõîâàíèÿ â Åâðîïåéñêîì Ñîþçå. Îí ðàññìàòðèâàåò îáëàñòè íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè â èíòåðïðåòàöèè òðåòüåé äèðåêòèâû ïî ñòðàõîâàíèþ, íå ñâÿçàííîìó ñ ñòðàõîâàíèåì æèçíè, îñîáåííî ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê òîìó, êîãäà è êàê ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ìîãóò ðåãóëèðîâàòü ÷àñòíîå ìåäèöèíñêîå ñòðàõîâàíèå, è ñòàâèò âîïðîñû î ñïîñîáíîñòè Äèðåêòèâû îáåñïå÷èòü çàùèòó ïîòðåáèòåëåé è ñîöèàëüíóþ çàùèòó íà ðûíêàõ ìåäèöèíñêîãî ñòðàõîâàíèÿ.” Êàê ïîëó÷èòü: ×åðåç Èíòåðíåò â ôîðìàòå PDF [30 ñ.] URL: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Àâñòðàëèÿ: îáçîð ñèñòåìû çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ. Ñèñòåìû çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ ïåðåõîäíîãî ïåðèîäà (Australia: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition) (2006) (íà àíãë.ÿç.) Àâòîð: Äæóäèò Õèëè, Ýâåëèí Øàðìàí, Áóääèìà Ëîêóãå (Judith Healy, Evelyn Sharman, Buddhima Lokuge). Âñåìèðíàÿ Îðãàíèçàöèÿ Çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ – Åâðîïåéñêàÿ îáñåðâàòîðèÿ ïî ñèñòåìàì è ïîëèòèêå çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ. Îïèñàíèå: “… Ïðîôèëè ïåðåõîäíûõ ñèñòåì çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ (ÏÑÇ) – ýòî îò÷åòû, îñíîâàííûå íà îòäåëüíûõ ñòðàíàõ, â êîòîðûõ ïðèâîäèòñÿ äåòàëüíîå îïèñàíèå ñèñòåìû çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ è èíèöèàòèâ â îáëàñòè ïîëèòèêè çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ, íàõîäÿùèõñÿ â ñòàíîâëåíèè èëè â ñòàäèè ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ. ÏÑÇ èçó÷àþò ðàçëè÷íûå ïîäõîäû ê îðãàíèçàöèè, ôèíàíñèðîâàíèþ è ïðåäîñòàâëåíèþ ìåäèöèíñêîé ïîìîùè è ðîëè âåäóùèõ äåéñòâóþùèõ ëèö â ñèñòåìàõ çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ; îïèñûâàþò ñåòü èíñòèòóòîâ, ïðîöåññ, ñîäåðæàíèå è âíåäðåíèå ïîëèòèêè çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ è îêàçàíèÿ ìåäèöèíñêîé ïîìîùè, à òàêæå âûÿâëÿåò òå òðóäíîñòè è ñôåðû, êîòîðûå òðåáóþò äîïîëíèòåëüíîãî óãëóáëåííîãî àíàëèçà.” Êàê ïîëó÷èòü: ×åðåç Èíòåðíåò â ôîðìàòå PDF [178 ñ.] URL: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
There is a nice list in the report *2003-Review of Hospital Quality Reports for Health Care Consumers*, *Purchasers and* *Providers*. /IPRO Rep./, IPRO, Lake Success. at:
[Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] USA Today has an article in today's paper with a focus of state reported transparency: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] bibliography: #1 Consumer Checkbook [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Consumer Checkbook is a consumer publisher and Web site supported by the Center for the Study of Services, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit organization. Its guide includes "desirability" ratings for hospitals based on surveys of physicians, risk-adjusted mortality figures, and adverse outcome rates for several surgical procedures. The desirability scores are just a matter of physician Hospital Compare Hospital Compare - Hospital Compare was created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) along with the Hospital Quality Alliance (HQA). The HQA was founded to the reporting of hospital quality of care. The HQA counts among its member's organizations that represent consumers, doctors, employers, hospitals, accrediting organizations and Federal agencies. Hospital Compare uses quality measures to determine how often hospitals provide recommended care to obtain the best results for most patients. Measures include treatment for a heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, or having surgery. Visit the Hospital Compare website at [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]. opinion. The mortality and outcome information is based on 1996-99 Medicare data, so it's out of date. The Web version of the guide can be hard to follow. The guide costs $19.95, either in print or through the Web site. #2 National Voluntary Hospital Reporting Initiative [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] This is Medicare's foray into hospital quality rating. So far, three conditions are covered: heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia. Hospitals have been asked to provide information on certain aspects of care for those conditions - for example, the percentage of heart attack patients that receive an aspirin upon arrival. Each hospital's performance is compared with results for the top 10% and 50% of hospitals. For example, if 99% of heart attack patients at the top 10% of hospitals get an aspirin upon arrival, but only 70% of the patients at your hospital do, maybe heart attack care at your hospital isn't what it should be. This is just a pilot project, so many hospitals aren't listed. It would be helpful to have some explanation for why these particular aspects of care are important. #3 Select Quality Care [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Select Quality Care is a Web site developed by HealthShare Technology, an Acton, Mass., company. Unlike the other sites on this list , it's not accessible to the public - only to people enrolled in health plans that HealthShare has contracts with. At least one other company is selling a similar, members-only report card Web site to health plans. One nice feature of the site is that the hospital rankings depend on how you personally rate the importance of patient volume, mortality rates, and several other factors. If you revise your preferences you can see how it affects the rankings. The site also has graphics that make the averages for your area clear, so you can easily tell whether a hospital falls above or below the mean. #4 NCQA [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), It is a private, independent nonprofit health care quality oversight organization that measures and reports on health care quality and unites diverse groups around a common goal: improving health care quality. NCQA, has demonstrated several successful provider-level measurement initiatives connected to P4P programs, notable among them Bridges to Excellence programs in several markets, physician recognition programs, the Integrated Healthcare Association's P4P initiative in California, the National Forum on Performance Benchmarking of Physician Offices and Organizations, and health plan accreditation #5 National Quality Healthcare Award, presented by the National Quality Forum. The award is conducted in partnership with Modern Healthcare and underwritten by the Cardinal Health Foundation. Prior awards were presented by the National Ñommittee for Quality Health Care, which merged with the NQF last year. The criteria were revamped, and this year's award puts more emphasis on use of standardized quality measures and public reporting of performance data. #6 Solucient Top 100 Hosptials [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] 4-bafc-4d77c5a323f4%40sessionmgr2 #7 HealthGrades - Information on Hospitals, Doctors and Nursing Homes Information on: Hospital Quality Report. Quality Ratings; 32 Common Procedures and Diagnoses; Award Recipients ... and much more! ... Stock quote for HGRD [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] - 83k - Cached - Similar pages #8 J.D. Power Consumer Center Check out the hospital's quality ratings provided by a number of different organizations, including HealthGrades ([Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]), The Leapfrog Group ... [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] - 21k - Cached - Similar pages #9 Quality Check [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
performance and reporting this performance on their Web site, Hospital
Compare. It is unknown whether these process performance measures are related to hospital-level outcomes. #12 The Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) is a national partnership of organizations committed to improving the safety of surgical care through the reduction of post-operative complications. Partners in the SCIP believe that a meaningful reduction in complications requires that surgeons, anesthesiologists, perioperative nurses, pharmacists, infection control professionals and hospital executives work together to intensify their commitment to making surgical care improvement a priority. In addition to continuing to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), the SCIP Partnership is broadening the scope of the new national project by targeting additional adverse events to include cardiac, respiratory and venous thromboembolic complications. Quality Measures Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI): Aspirin at arrival Aspirin prescribed at discharge Beta Blocker at arrival Beta Blocker prescribed at discharge ACE inhibitor or ARB for left ventricular systolic dysfunction Optional Measures: Smoking cessation advice/counseling Thrombolytic agent received within 30 minutes of hospital arrival PCI received within 120 minutes of hospital arrival Heart Failure (HF): Left ventricular function assessment ACE inhibitor/ARB for left ventricular systolic dysfunction Optional Measures: Discharge instructions Smoking cessation advise/counseling Pneumonia (PNE): Initial antibiotic received within four hours of hospital arrival Oxygenation assessment within 24 hours of hospital arrival Pnuemococcal vaccination Optional Measures: Blood culture performed prior to the initial antibiotic received in the hospital Initial antibiotic selection for community acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent patients Adult smoking cessation advice/counseling Influenza vaccination #13 IHI 5 Million Lives Campaign The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has launched the 5 Million Lives Campaign, an initiative to protect patients from five million incidents of medical harm over the next two years (December 2006 - December 2008) Proven Interventions The 5 Million Lives Campaign challenges American hospitals to adopt 12 changes in care that save lives and reduce patient injuries: The six interventions from the 100,000 Lives Campaign * Deploy Rapid Response Teams...at the first sign of patient decline * Deliver Reliable, Evidence-Based Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction...to prevent deaths from heart attack * Prevent Adverse Drug Events (ADEs)...by implementing medication reconciliation * Prevent Central Line Infections...by implementing a series of interdependent, scientifically grounded steps * Prevent Surgical Site Infections...by reliably delivering the correct perioperative antibiotics at the proper time * Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia...by implementing a series of interdependent, scientifically grounded steps New interventions targeted at harm * Prevent Harm from High-Alert Medications... starting with a focus on anticoagulants, sedatives, narcotics, and insulin * Reduce Surgical Complications... by reliably implementing all of the changes in care recommended by SCIP, the Surgical Care Improvement Project ([Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]) * Prevent Pressure Ulcers... by reliably using science-based guidelines for their prevention * Reduce Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection...by reliably implementing scientifically proven infection control practices * Deliver Reliable, Evidence-Based Care for Congestive Heart Failure... to avoid readmissions * Get Boards on Board ... by defining and spreading the best-known leveraged processes for hospital Boards of Directors, so that they can become far more effective in accelerating organizational progress toward safe care #14 The Appropriate Care Measure Identified Participant Group The Appropriate Care Measure (ACM) Identified Participant Group (IPG) is a hospital initiative designed to bring transformational change to the health care arena and raise the bar for performance to provide the right care for every patient, every time. Project Goals Provide information and assistance to assess and improve hospital systems in managing three clinical conditions -- Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure and Pneumonia -- and ten publicly reportable quality-of-care measures Expand public reporting of performance measures to include all Hospital Quality Alliance (HQA) proposed indicators ACM Scoring Methodology The ACM is a composite measure based upon five AMI measures, two Heart Failure measures, and three Pneumonia measures. All patients eligible for at least one of the ten measures are counted in the denominator. To be counted in the numerator, the patient must receive all of the care specified by the measures that the patient is eligible for. There is no weighting in this calculation. For example: Mr. S is admitted with an AMI, and by chart abstraction, is eligible for aspirin and Beta Blockers but is not eligible for ACEI or ARB upon discharge. Mr. S is eligible for Aspirin upon arrival Aspirin at discharge Beta Blocker at arrival Beta Blocker prescribed at discharge Chart abstraction results: Received aspirin upon arrival? Yes Received aspirin at discharge? Yes Received Beta Blocker at arrival? Yes Received Beta Blocker at discharge? No Analysis: Mr. S fails the ACM because a single element of care for which he is eligible was not provided, namely the Beta Blocker at discharge. The move to a patient-centric measure rather than a process-centric measure is in keeping with the CMS mantra of "The Right Care for Every Person Every Time." Given this change, it is important to realize that if you are doing well at every process but one, your score CANNOT exceed your weakest score. #15 Home Health Quality Initiative Quality Measures for Public Reporting OASIS Outcome Measure Consumer Language Improvement in upper body dressing Patients who get better at getting dressed Improvement in bathing Patients who get better at bathing Stabilization in bathing Patients who stay the same (don't get worse) at bathing Improvement in toileting Patients who get better getting to and from the toilet Improvement in ambulation/locomotion Patients who get better at walking or moving around Improvement in transferring Patients who get better at getting in and out of bed Improvement in management of oral medications Patients who get better at taking their medicines correctly (by mouth) Improvement in confusion frequency Patients who are confused less often Improvement in pain interfering with activity Patients who have less pain when moving around Acute care hospitalization Patients who had to be admitted to the hospital Any emergent care provided Patients who need urgent, unplanned medical care #16 The Leapfrog Group [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] 1. What measures are included in Leapfrog Hospital Insights? Leapfrog Hospital Insights measures quality, efficiency and overall performance in five clinical areas. The quality measures are a combination of Joint Commission Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) core measures - processes of care that should be standard for every applicable admission - and the Leapfrog Hospital Quality and Safety Survey, which focuses on patient safety practices known to reduce preventable medical mistakes. The Leapfrog Hospital Insights efficiency measure is the first nationally collectable and comparable measure of hospital resource efficiency. The five areas of inpatient care measured by Leapfrog Hospital Insights are the following: * Acute myocardial infarction (AMI), commonly known as heart attack; * Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), commonly known as bypass surgery; * Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), commonly known as angioplasty; * Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); and * Deliveries/newborn care. #17 Quality Tools [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] okup_id=528&mode=4 #18 Quality Indicator Project (QI Project) [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] #19 National Quality Measures Clearinghouse: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] #20 National Quality Forum (NQF) [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Note: Norton Healthcare is a member of NQF. * hospital care * cardiac surgery - also see - The Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) * nursing-sensitive care * ambulatory (physician office) care * safe practices #21 Norton HealthCare Quality Report [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Quality Indicators Included: Patient satisfaction Nursing care Antibiotic susceptibility Patient safety Infection control Other indicators Surgery Childbirth Pneumonia Childbirth - other Heart failure Children Heart attack Safe practices Cardiovascular procedures Cancer survival rates Physician office care Data validity |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
#24
The Vermont Oxford Network [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] * Neonatal mortality by birth weight #25 National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators #26 American Nurses Association's National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI)National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI) . #27 Improving America's Hospitals: A Report on Quality and Safety" released by the Joint Commission #28 Institute of Medicine #29 National Patient Safety Foundation [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] #29 National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR), sponsored by the US Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research #8 OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project - multiple panels within? #29 President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry #30 National Committee for Quality Assurance #31 National Quality Forum (NQF) #32 Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance, [3] a national consortium of key stakeholders that includes physicians, employers, government agencies, health insurance plans, and accrediting organizations all working together, announced consensus on a uniform starter set of 26 ambulatory performance measures #33 NHRQ #22 Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) * National Patient Safety Goals JCAHO and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) * Indicators (these are included in the NQF Hospital Care indicators) The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) * Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs) Note: For consistency with other indicators in the Norton Healthcare Quality Report, we show the AHRQ indicators as percentages rather than as rates per 1,000. Additional pediatric indicators come from JCAHO's ORYX indicators, which we collect through: #23 The BENCHmarking Effort for Networking Children's Hospitals (MMP) * Asthma readmissions and returns to the Emergency Department#34 National Forum on Performance Benchmarking of Physician Offices and Organizations See handout on physician performance #35 US National Healthcare Quality Report. #36 IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. Griffin FA, Resar RK. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2007. Patient Safety Indicators Hospital Quality Alliance CMS/ Doctors Office Quality Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement/AMA This link will take you to a 2003 report of Review of Hospital Quality Reports 36 total [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
[Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]
The German Agency for Quality in Medicine |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Âî èìÿ áåçîïàñíîñòè: äåñÿòü ðàçáîðîâ ñëó÷àåâ ñíèæåíèÿ âðåäà äëÿ ïàöèåíòîâ (Committed to Safety: Ten Case Studies on Reducing Harm to Patients)(2006) (íà àíãë.ÿç)
Àâòîð: Ä. Ìàêêàðòè [D. McCarthy], Ä. Áëþìåíòàëü [D. Blumenthal]. Ôîíä ñîäðóæåñòâà [The Commonwealth Fund] Îïèñàíèå: “ ýòîì äîêëàäå ïðåäñòàâëåíû 10 ñëó÷àåâ èçó÷åíèÿ ðàáîòû ëå÷åáíî-ïðîôèëàêòè÷åñêèõ ó÷ðåæäåíèé, êëèíè÷åñêèõ áðèãàä è îáó÷àþùèõ ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâ, ñîçäàâøèõ íîâàòîðñêèå èäåè â ïÿòè îáëàñòÿõ, ÿâëÿþùèõñÿ ìíîãîîáåùàþùèìè äëÿ óëó÷øåíèÿ áåçîïàñíîñòè ïàöèåíòîâ â íàöèîíàëüíîì ìàñøòàáå, à èìåííî: ïðîïàãàíäà îðãàíèçàöèîííîé êóëüòóðû áåçîïàñíîñòè, óëó÷øåíèå ðàáîòû â êîìàíäå è îáùåíèÿ, óñèëåíèå áûñòðîãî ðåàãèðîâàíèÿ äëÿ ïðåäîòâðàùåíèÿ èíôàðêòà ìèîêàðäà è äðóãèõ êðèçèñíûõ ñèòóàöèé â ñòàöèîíàðå, ïðîôèëàêòèêà èíôåêöèé, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ëå÷åíèåì â îòäåëåíèè èíòåíñèâíîé òåðàïèè è ðåàíèìàöèè, è ïðåäîòâðàùåíèå ïðîÿâëåíèÿ ïîáî÷íîãî äåéñòâèÿ ìåäèêàìåíòîâ âî âñåé áîëüíèöå…. Âîîáùå, ýòè ñëó÷àè äåìîíñòðèðóþò òîò ôàêò, ÷òî óëó÷øåíèÿ ìîæíî äîáèòüñÿ â ëþáîì ó÷ðåæäåíèè, ãäå èìååòñÿ ðóêîâîäñòâî, öåëåíàïðàâëåííîå ïðèìåíåíèå ìåòîäîâ è æåëàíèå èçìåíèòüñÿ âî èìÿ áåçîïàñíîñòè ïàöèåíòîâ.” Êàê ïîëó÷èòü: Èìååòñÿ â ðåæèìå online â ôîðìàòå PDF [98 ñòð.] URL: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ðàöèîíàëüíûé ïóòü âïåðåä äëÿ Íàöèîíàëüíîé ñèñòåìû çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ Àíãëèè. Äèñêóññèîííûé äîêëàä îá àëüòåðíàòèâíîì ïîäõîäå ê ðåôîðìå çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ – ìàé 2007 ã. (A rational way forward for the NHS in England. A discussion paper outlining an alternative approach to health reform - May 2007) (íà àíãë.ÿç)
Àâòîð: Áðèòàíñêàÿ ìåäèöèíñêàÿ àññîöèàöèÿ (BMA) Îïèñàíèå: “Äîêòîðà íà åæåãîäíîé êîíôåðåíöèè BMA â 2006 ã. âûðàçèëè ñâîþ òðåâîãó, ñâÿçàííóþ ñ íåïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòüþ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ëèíèè ïðàâèòåëüñòâåííîé ñèñòåìû Íàöèîíàëüíîãî çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ… 24 ðåêîìåíäàöèè ïðèçûâàþò ê àëüòåðíàòèâíîìó ïóòè âïåðåä, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî ìîæíî îêàçûâàòü ëó÷øèå óñëóãè ïàöèåíòàì ïðè ñîõðàíåíèè îñíîâíûõ ìîðàëüíûõ öåííîñòåé NHS.” Êàê ïîëó÷èòü: Èìååòñÿ â ðåæèìå online â ôîðìàòå PDF [82 ñòð.] URL: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFrationalwayforward/$FILE/rationalwayforward.pdf Ôèíàíñèðîâàíèå çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ: â 2008 ã. è âïîñëåäñòâèè (Funding Health Care: 2008 and Beyond) (íà àíãë.ÿç) Àâòîð: Äæîí Ýïïëáè [John Appleby] (ðåäàêòîð). King’s Fund Îïèñàíèå: Èç äîêëàäà íà ñàììèòå â Leeds Castle. “Ñ öåëüþ ñîäåéñòâèÿ èíôîðìèðîâàíèþ îáñóæäåíèÿ ôèíàíñèðîâàíèÿ çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ â òå÷åíèå ïîñëåäóþùåãî ïåðèîäà äëèòåëüíîñòüþ îò ïÿòè äî äåñÿòè ëåò Ôîíä îðãàíèçîâàë â Leeds Castle âñòðå÷ó ñòàðøèõ ìåíåäæåðîâ, ýêîíîìèñòîâ çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ è ñîâåòíèêîâ ïî íîðìàòèâíî-ïðàâîâîìó ðåãóëèðîâàíèþ. Îíè îáñóäèëè íå òîëüêî òî, êàêîé óðîâåíü îáùåñòâåííîãî ôèíàíñèðîâàíèÿ ðåàëåí è æåëàòåëåí, íî òàêæå è ïðîöåññ, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî ñëåäóåò ïðèíèìàòü ïîäîáíûå ðåøåíèÿ, à òàêæå êîíöåïòóàëüíóþ îñíîâó, ÷òî äîëæíà íàïðàâëÿòü è èíôîðìèðîâàòü òåõ, êòî îòâå÷àåò çà íîðìàòèâíî-ïðàâîâîå ðåãóëèðîâàíèå çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ. Äàííûé äîêóìåíò âêëþ÷àåò ïðåçåíòàöèè ïî êëþ÷åâûì àñïåêòàì ïðîâîäÿùèõñÿ â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ñèñòåìíûõ ðåôîðì è ðåçþìå îáñóæäåíèé….” Êàê ïîëó÷èòü: Èìååòñÿ â ðåæèìå online â ôîðìàòå PDF [85 ñòð.] URL: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
[Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ]
the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group As a review group of the Cochrane Collaboration, the focus of EPOC is on reviews of interventions designed to improve professional practice and the delivery of effective health services. This includes various forms of continuing education, quality assurance, informatics, financial, organisational and regulatory interventions that can affect the ability of health care professionals to deliver services more effectively and efficiently. The site includes training guides and tools for EPOC review authors, links to EPOC protocols and systematic reviews, background on the scope of the group, an online form for anyone interested in joining EPOC, and information about the development of the EPOC specialised register. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ñòðàòåãèè äîñòèæåíèÿ óíèâåðñàëüíîãî îõâàòà: Ïî÷åðïíóòû ëè óðîêè èç ñòðàí ñî ñðåäíèì äîõîäîì? 2007
(Strategies to achieve universal coverage: are there lessons from middle income countries?) (íà àíãë.ÿç) Àâòîð: Anne Mills, Ïðîãðàììà ýêîíîìèêè è ôèíàíñîâ çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ, Ëîíäîíñêàÿ øêîëà ãèãèåíû è òðîïè÷åñêîé ìåäèöèíû Îïèñàíèå Îáçîð ëèòåðàòóðû, ïðîâåäåííûé ïî çàêàçó Èíôîñåòè ñèñòåì çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ Êîìèññèè ïî ñîöèàëüíûì äåòåðìèíàíòàì çäîðîâüÿ Âñåìèðíîé Îðãàíèçàöèè Çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ (Health Systems Knowledge Network World Health Organisation's Commission on Social Determinants of Health). "Ñòðàíû, êîòîðûì åùå ïðåäñòîèò äîñòè÷ü óíèâåðñàëüíîãî îõâàòà, ðàññìàòðèâàþò ìíîæåñòâî âàðèàíòîâ ñòðàòåãèé, ñïîñîáíûõ ïðèáëèçèòü èõ ê ïîñòàâëåííîé öåëè. Ñ ó÷åòîì òîãî, ÷òî óíèâåðñàëüíûé îõâàò òðåáóåò ïåðåêðåñòíûõ ñóáñèäèé ðàçëè÷íûõ òèïîâ, îñîáåííî, ñî ñòîðîíû áîëåå áîãàòûõ ãðóïï íàñåëåíèÿ â ïîëüçó ìåíåå îáåñïå÷åííûõ, ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ äèíàìèêà è áîëåå øèðîêèå ñîöèàëüíûå âëèÿíèÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî âàæíû â ñâîåì âîçäåéñòâèè è íà âûáîð ñòðàòåãèé, è íà òåìï ïðîãðåññà." Êàê ïîëó÷èòü Èìååòñÿ â âèäå ôàéëà PDF [42 ñòð.] [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |