Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12024630

Developing an orthopaedic outcomes program.

C Arslanian
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Over the past several years there has been an increased effort to document outcomes, especially in the area of orthopaedics. Outcomes research is important because it can quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrate changes in a patient's condition, provide validation of clinical procedures, and impact upon patient satisfaction. Outcomes research is similar to traditional research in that it looks at a group of patients or a patient care process and focuses on the outcomes of treatment or care. An outcomes program is the infrastructure necessary to collect and analyze outcomes data within a scientifically sound framework. The steps of developing an outcomes program include identifying key players in the process, identifying the diagnoses and procedures to track in the program, deciding outcomes to measure, identifying instruments to be used, developing the data collection process, establishing a timeline, and developing the data entry and analysis process. A successful outcomes program is the product of a collaborative team effort. With knowledge of the necessary components and effective teamwork, it is relatively simple to establish a successful outcomes program.

Explore related subjects

Data CollectionNursesOrthopedicsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Care TeamPhysiciansProgram DevelopmentQuality of Health CareJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Arslanian. Developing an orthopaedic outcomes program.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006416-200103000-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors' clinical experience.

When a patient refuses to inform relatives of their risk for genetic disease, the genetic healthcare professional is faced with conflicting ethical obligations. On one side of the issue is the obligation to respect and protect patients' right to privacy. On the other side is the obligation to prevent harm and promote the welfare of the family members, which suggests a responsibility to warn at-risk relatives, even without the patient's consent. In an effort to examine the actual clinical impact of this issue, we conducted a pilot study that explored genetic counselors' experience with this conflict. A survey was developed and made available to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Questions were either multiple-choice responses or open-ended. Almost half of respondents (119/259; 46%) had had a patient refuse to notify an at-risk relative. The most commonly cited reasons for refusal were estranged family relationships, altering family dynamics, insurance discrimination, and employment discrimination, respectively. Of these 119 counselors, 24 (21%) reported that they seriously considered warning the at-risk relatives without patient consent, and one actually did disclose. Three factors consistently made the counselors less likely to disclose: their patient's potential emotional reaction, the relationship between the relative and patient, and the chance that the relative could be aware of the disease by another means. These results suggest that while the conflict is often encountered in clinical practice, it is rare that the situation remains unresolved to the extent that genetic counselors actually consider warning at-risk relatives. However, when the situation was encountered, the counselors in this study reported a lower rate of disclosure without consent than would have been anticipated based on previous studies that used hypothetical situations. It may be that counselors do not recognize a duty to warn at-risk relatives as integral to their role and professional obligations.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2003

Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey.

Multi-slice (MS) technology increases the efficacy of CT procedures and offers new promising applications. The expanding use of MSCT, however, may result in an increase in both frequency of procedures and levels of patient exposure. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to gain an overview of MSCT examinations conducted in Germany in 2001. All MSCT facilities were requested to provide information about 14 standard examinations with respect to scan parameters and frequency. Based on this data, dosimetric quantities were estimated using an experimentally validated formalism. Results are compared with those of a previous survey for single-slice (SS) spiral CT scanners. According to the data provided for 39 dual- and 73 quad-slice systems, the average annual number of patients examined at MSCT is markedly higher than that examined at SSCT scanners (5500 vs 3500). The average effective dose to patients was changed from 7.4 mSv at single-slice to 5.5 mSv and 8.1 mSv at dual- and quad-slice scanners, respectively. There is a considerable potential for dose reduction at quad-slice systems by an optimisation of scan protocols and better education of the personnel. To avoid an increase in the collective effective dose from CT procedures, a clear medical justification is required in each case.

Data Collection↗