Abstract:
AIM: To evaluate the medical quality of ophthalmologic perioperative period during 2010-2012 in our hospital.METHODS:The relevant data of perioperative period were collected in our hospital during 2010-2012, and the medical quality of perioperative period was evaluated by using the traditional evaluation indexes and adverse events. Whereby, the traditional indicators include vision changes, improving of intraocular pressure, diagnostic accordance rate before and after operation, cure improvement rate, successful rescue rate, and incidence of surgical complications, etc. Adverse events are associated with ophthalmologic perioperative events including pressure sores, postoperative wound infection, drug adverse events, and equipment related adverse events.RESULTS:There were 1483, 1662 and 1931 ophthalmic operations in our hospital in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. From traditional index analysis, the proportions of vision improvement for each year were 96.43%, 96.76% and 97.32%, respectively; the rates of intraocular pressure improvement were 87.50%, 85.72% and 90.17%, respectively (P <0.05); the diagnostic accordance rates before and after operation were 99.86%, 99.94% and 99.90%, respectively; cure improvement rates were 99.73%, 99.93% and 99.84%, respectively; the successful rescue rates were 82.98%, 81.46% and 76.66%, respectively; the complications incidence rates were 18.44%, 17.52% and 17.97%, respectively. The negative factor analysis results showed that:among all the patients of ophthalmic surgeries in our hospital during 2010 and 2012, only one case of postoperative wound infection was found in 2011, and also only one case of tumbling in 2010. The adverse drug events for each year were 1 case (0.07%), 2 cases (0.12%), and 4 cases (0.21%), respectively; the medical device adverse events for each year were 3 cases (0.20%), 5 cases (0.30%), and 6 cases (0.31%), respectively. Noticeably, only one case with postoperative infection of endophthalmitis was found in 2011. Moreover, no pulmonary infection or pulmonary embolism occurred during the three years. The perioperative adverse event rates for each year were 0.34% (5/1483), 0.48% (8/1662) and 0.52% (10/1931), respectively. Though incidence was rising during the three years period, no statistical significance was observed (P>0.05). It is the same case with drugs and medical devices adverse events (P >0.05).CONCLUSION:Traditional indicators reflect an excellent operation of the perioperative ophthalmologic quality, whereas adverse events analysis indicates some underlying problems. Compared with the traditional indexes for medical quality evaluation, the index of adverse events is more reasonable and easier to make an objective evaluation for medical quality of ophthalmologic perioperation, facilitating further refine analysis. Reasonable application of the adverse events indicators helps hospital to make the detailed quality control measures.
