Scholarlink

Object <p>To construct a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing and identify deficiencies in clinical practice.</p> Methods <p>Based on the structure-process-outcome framework, we developed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi consultation (<i>n</i> = 22 experts). We used the analytic hierarchy process determined indicator weights. Validation included an empirical evaluation across 30 public hospitals using TOPSIS and RSR methods.</p> Results <p>The finalized system comprises 3 first-level, 15&#xa0;s-level, and 49 third-level indicators. Expert authority coefficients were 0.903/0.898; Kendall’s W = 0.321/0.329 (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.01). Hospital performance: total score = 84.09 ± 8.63 (structure = 14.90 ± 2.73; process = 33.77 ± 4.39; outcome = 35.42 ± 2.95). TOPSIS-RSR analysis identified H13, H3, and H27 as top performers and H4, H1, and H20 as needing improvement.</p> Conclusion <p>The validated system effectively identifies clinical weaknesses and provides actionable insights for quality enhancement.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Construction and application of a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月24日

查看全文
  • Yuejiao Zhang,
  • Ruiyi Zhao,
  • Hongling Sun,
  • Nan Jiang,
  • Xiaoling Shao,
  • Jiangliu Xia

摘要

Object

To construct a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing and identify deficiencies in clinical practice.

Methods

Based on the structure-process-outcome framework, we developed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi consultation (n = 22 experts). We used the analytic hierarchy process determined indicator weights. Validation included an empirical evaluation across 30 public hospitals using TOPSIS and RSR methods.

Results

The finalized system comprises 3 first-level, 15 s-level, and 49 third-level indicators. Expert authority coefficients were 0.903/0.898; Kendall’s W = 0.321/0.329 (P < 0.01). Hospital performance: total score = 84.09 ± 8.63 (structure = 14.90 ± 2.73; process = 33.77 ± 4.39; outcome = 35.42 ± 2.95). TOPSIS-RSR analysis identified H13, H3, and H27 as top performers and H4, H1, and H20 as needing improvement.

Conclusion

The validated system effectively identifies clinical weaknesses and provides actionable insights for quality enhancement.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.