HELPING TO SHAPE CQC INSPECTIONS OF SPECIALIST CHILDREN'S TRUSTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Aim</h3> To participate in a pilot Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection of a specialist paediatric hospital and to provide feedback to improve further inspections. <h3>Method</h3> To meet the CQC9s regulatory requirements, the methodology of the inspection process had been improved and refined. A ‘peer-review’ model of inspection was now employed, utilising larger more inclusive teams to deliver a more in-depth inspection in a shorter time-frame (2 days). The inspection team consisted of general and specialist paediatricians, general and specialist children9s nurses, pharmacists and other Allied Healthcare Professionals (AHPs), play therapists, managers and experts by experience (parents), supported by experienced CQC inspectors and data analysts. A training day prior to the inspection enabled the team to meet, become acquainted, learn about the CQC, understand individual roles and establish an inspection schedule. The inspection itself took the form of ward visits, individual interviews with key personnel, small group interviews, staff focus groups, observing care and speaking to service users and a public listening event was also held. <h3>Results</h3> The inspection-pharmacist was tasked with interviewing the chief pharmacist, leading a peer focus group of AHPs, conducting informal interviews with service staff, recording ward and service-provision observations, and providing expert advice to team members on medicines management issues. To ensure a consistent approach to inspections, all Trusts are assessed against the CQC9s five domains (safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led); for each domain there is a generic set of ‘Key Lines of Enquiry’ (KLOE). During the inspection, twice daily corroborative meetings were held to allow team members to discuss emerging findings and any common themes causing concern. All collected pieces of evidence were rated against the KLOEs as objectively as possible. All aspects of medicines management were viewed: pharmacy work force, governance, error reporting, information provision to staff and parents, storage and procurement, safe practice and patient perception. At the end of the inspection the team was debriefed and feedback was collated and assimilated. This would be used as evidence in the inspection report. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The CQC inspection was fast-paced and very intensive with a huge amount to cover in a very short space of time. In addition to the feedback given during the inspection, a pharmacist9s summary report was submitted which documented the positive aspects of the investigation, but also made suggestions for further improvement. It was noted that medicines management should be inspected across the hospital as a speciality in its own right as it impacts on many aspects of hospital service. The inspection team could have benefitted from having two pharmacists, each focussing on different aspects of medicines management. The paediatric pharmacist proved to be a valuable member of the inspection team, providing expert advice on medicines management issues in children, as well as identifying and highlighting areas normally associated with the greatest risk within the paediatric population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».