000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c16587 _d16587
003			PC16587
005			20230201062816.0
008			210825b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cH12O
041			_aeng
100			_92606 _aCastro Acosta, Ady _eInstituto de Investigación i+12
100			_9702 _aPozo Rodríguez, Francisco _eNeumología _eInstituto de Investigación i+12 (2013-)
245	0	0	_aResults from an audit feedback strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in-hospital care: a joint analysis from the AUDIPOC and European COPD audit studies. _h[artículo]
260			_bPLoS One, _c2014
300			_a9(10):e110394.
500			_aFormato Vancouver: López Campos JL, Asensio Cruz MI, Castro Acosta A, Calero C, Pozo Rodríguez F; AUDIPOC and the European COPD Audit studies. Results from an audit feedback strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in-hospital care: a joint analysis from the AUDIPOC and European COPD audit studies. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 15;9(10):e110394.
501			_aPMID: 25333953 PMC4198296.
504			_aContiene 28 referencias
520			_aBackground: Clinical audits have emerged as a potential tool to summarize the clinical performance of healthcare over a specified period of time. However, the effectiveness of audit and feedback has shown inconsistent results and the impact of audit and feedback on clinical performance has not been evaluated for COPD exacerbations. In the present study, we analyzed the results of two consecutive nationwide clinical audits performed in Spain to evaluate both the in-hospital clinical care provided and the feedback strategy. Methods: The present study is an analysis of two clinical audits performed in Spain that evaluated the clinical care provided to COPD patients who were admitted to the hospital for a COPD exacerbation. The first audit was performed from November-December 2008. The feedback strategy consisted of personalized reports for each participant center, the presentation and discussion of the results at regional, national and international meetings and the creation of health-care quality standards for COPD. The second audit was part of a European study during January and February 2011. The impact of the feedback strategy was evaluated in term of clinical care provided and in-hospital survival. Results: A total of 94 centers participated in the two audits, recruiting 8,143 admissions (audit 1∶3,493 and audit 2∶4,650). The initially provided clinical care was reasonably acceptable even though there was considerable variability. Several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures improved in the second audit. Although the differences were significant, the degree of improvement was small to moderate. We found no impact on in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: The present study describes COPD hospital care in Spanish hospitals and evaluates the impact of peer-benchmarked, individually written and group-oral feedback strategy on the clinical outcomes for treating COPD exacerbations. It describes small to moderate improvements in the clinical care provided to COPD patients with no impact on in-hospital mortality.
710			_9625 _aInstituto de Investigación imas12
856			_yAcceso libre _uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198296/
942			_2ddc _cART _n0