Estrategias para mejorar el flujo de ingresos y estancias hospitalarias: adaptación del cuestionario Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP): estudio Delphi / Strategies to improve the flow of admissions and hospital stays: A Delphi study of an adaptation of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol

Introducción y objetivo La herramienta Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) analiza las estancias e ingresos hospitalarios inadecuados. El objetivo de este estudio fue adaptar el cuestionario AEP para analizar la adecuación de los ingresos y las estancias hospitalarias en nuestra realidad asistencial. Método Se desarrolló un estudio utilizando el método Delphi en el que participaron 15 expertos en gestión clínica y en asistencia hospitalaria. Los ítems del formulario inicial se conformaron a partir de la herramienta AEP tal y como fue definida en su primera versión. En la primera ronda los participantes aportaron nuevos ítems que consideraron relevantes en nuestra realidad actual. En las rondas 2 y 3 evaluaron 80 ítems según su relevancia mediante la utilización de una escala Likert del 1 al 4 (máxima utilidad). De acuerdo al diseño de nuestro estudio los ítems del AEP se consideraron adecuados si la media de la puntuación una vez evaluados por los expertos, era igual o superior a 3. Resultados Los participantes definieron un total de 19 nuevos ítems. Finalmente 47 ítems obtuvieron una puntuación media igual o superior a 3. El cuestionario resultante modificado consta de 17 ítems en «causas de admisiones adecuadas», 5 en «causas de admisiones inadecuadas», 15 en «causas de estancias adecuadas» y 10 en «causas de estancias inadecuadas». Conclusiones La identificación de ítems prioritarios para determinar la adecuación de los ingresos y las estancias prolongadas en nuestro medio y según la opinión de los expertos, podría definir un futuro instrumento para su utilización en nuestro entorno (AU)

Introduction and aim The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) tool analyzes inappropriate hospital stays and admissions. This study aimed to adapt the AEP questionnaire in order to analyze the appropriateness of hospital admissions and stays in our healthcare reality. Methods A study was conducted using the Delphi method in which 15 experts in clinical management and hospital care participated. The initial questionnaire items were taken from the first version of the AEP. In the first round, the participants contributed new items that they considered relevant in our current reality. In rounds 2 and 3, they evaluated 80 items according to their relevance using a Likert scale from 1 to 4 (maximum usefulness). Pursuant to the study's design, AEP items were considered adequate if the mean score according to the experts’ evaluation was greater than or equal to 3. Results The participants defined a total of 19 new items. In the end, 47 items earned a mean score greater than or equal to 3. The resulting modified questionnaire include 17 items in “Reasons for Appropriate Admissions”, 5 in “Reasons for Inappropriate Admissions”, 15 in “Reasons for Appropriate Hospital Stays”, and 10 in “Reasons for Inappropriate Hospital Stays”. Conclusions The identification according to expert opinion of priority items to determine the appropriateness of admissions and extended stays could be used in the future to help create an instrument to be used in our setting (AU)

Strategies to improve the flow of admissions and hospital stays: a Delphi study of an adaptation of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP).

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) tool analyzes inappropriate hospital stays and admissions. This study aimed to adapt the AEP questionnaire in order to analyse the appropriateness of hospital admissions and stays in our healthcare reality. METHODS: A study was conducted using the Delphi method in which 15 experts in clinical management and hospital care participated. The initial questionnaire items were taken from the first version of the AEP. In the first round, the participants contributed new items that they considered relevant in our current reality. In rounds 2 and 3, they evaluated 80 items according to their relevance using a Likert scale from 1 to 4 (maximum usefulness). Pursuant to the study's design, AEP items were considered adequate if the mean score according to the experts' evaluation was greater than or equal to 3. RESULTS: The participants defined a total of 19 new items. In the end, 47 items earned a mean score greater than or equal to 3. The resulting modified questionnaire include 17 items in "Reasons for Appropriate Admissions," 5 in "Reasons for Inappropriate Admissions," 15 in "Reasons for Appropriate Hospital Stays," and 10 in "Reasons for Inappropriate Hospital Stays." CONCLUSIONS: The identification according to expert opinion of priority items to determine the appropriateness of admissions and extended stays could be used in the future to help create an instrument to be used in our setting.