CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨持续质量改进方法对院前急救反应速度的影响。方法将2012年8月380例院前急救作为对照组，将2012年12月382例院前急救作为观察组。对照组采用传统的出车方式，观察组成立质量检查小组，分析发现院前急救反应现状，并找出影响院前急救反应速度的因素，制定相应改进目标。比较分析两组院前急救出车的反应情况。结果对照组白班、夜班的院前急救平均反应时间分别为（204．0±112．6），（196．3±95．9）s，持续质量改进后观察组平均反应时间为白班（138．7±58．4）s、夜班（144．9±74．6） s，观察组反应时间明显缩短，差异有统计学意义（ t值分别为-3．42，-3．45；P＜0.01）。持续质量改进后观察组院前急救反应速度合格率为88．22％，高于对照组合格率75．53％，差异有统计学意义（χ2＝20．697， P ＜0．01）。持续质量改进后观察组院前急救反应速度患者满意度为96.49％，优于对照组满意度89．78％，差异有统计学意义（χ2＝13．020，P＜0．01）。结论通过持续质量改进能有效的提高院前急救反应速度，为院前急救争取时间，提高患者满意度。
목적：탐토지속질량개진방법대원전급구반응속도적영향。방법장2012년8월380례원전급구작위대조조，장2012년12월382례원전급구작위관찰조。대조조채용전통적출차방식，관찰조성립질량검사소조，분석발현원전급구반응현상，병조출영향원전급구반응속도적인소，제정상응개진목표。비교분석량조원전급구출차적반응정황。결과대조조백반、야반적원전급구평균반응시간분별위（204．0±112．6），（196．3±95．9）s，지속질량개진후관찰조평균반응시간위백반（138．7±58．4）s、야반（144．9±74．6） s，관찰조반응시간명현축단，차이유통계학의의（ t치분별위-3．42，-3．45；P＜0.01）。지속질량개진후관찰조원전급구반응속도합격솔위88．22％，고우대조조합격솔75．53％，차이유통계학의의（χ2＝20．697， P ＜0．01）。지속질량개진후관찰조원전급구반응속도환자만의도위96.49％，우우대조조만의도89．78％，차이유통계학의의（χ2＝13．020，P＜0．01）。결론통과지속질량개진능유효적제고원전급구반응속도，위원전급구쟁취시간，제고환자만의도。
Objective To study the impact of continuous quality improvement ( CQI) program to pre-hospital emergency response .Methods Totals of 380 patients from August 2012 were selected as the observation group , while 382 patients from December 2012 were selected as the control group .The control group was given traditional driveway , while the observation group was supervised by the quality control group , using the PDCA program to analyze the factors affecting the reaction speed , in order to formulate improvement measures.Results The reaction time of the day shift and the night shift of the control group were (204.0 ± 112.6)s and (196.3 ±95.9)s, respectively, before the continuous quality improvement .The reaction time of the day shift and the night shift of the observation group were (138.7 ±58.4) s and (144.9 ±74.6) s, respectively, after the continuous quality improvement .The differences were significant ( t=-3.42,-3.45, respectively;P<0.01).The quality rate of the observation group was 88.22%, which was significantly higher than 75.53%of the control group (χ2 =20.697,P<0.01).The patients’ satisfaction of the observation group was 96.49%, which was significantly higher than 89.78% of the control group (χ2 =13.020,P<0.01). Conclusions By the continuous quality improvement , the pre-hospital emergency response efficiency increased obviously, therefore it can make time for per-hospital emergency response .