ArticleBMC research notes2016
ASPIRE for quality: a new evidence-based tool to evaluate clinical service performance.
Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of clinical performance is important in allied health but without a structured approach, the measuring or monitoring of allied health performance poses a number of challenges. This highlights the need for an evidence-based evaluation tool to assist allied health practitioners in clinical performance evaluation.
methodsThe ASPIRE framework was delivered to local health networks (LHN) in South Australia. Three sites participated in the pilot by providing a team to collaborate with the authors in organising and undertaking a performance evaluation. Evaluation of ASPIRE was conducted via self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured interview with the evaluation team. Themes were identified from the responses taken from the questionnaire and interviews.
resultsAll practitioners found ASPIRE useful or very useful and claimed that it helped quite a lot or a lot in the process of undertaking performance evaluation. They all rated ASPIRE as excellent or very good in terms of its appropriateness to their department, ease of implementation and pace of delivery. The interview findings verified the results of the questionnaire and added richness to the evaluation.
conclusionA pilot test of ASPIRE in allied health settings showed that users found ASPIRE easy to use and appropriate in addressing patient outcomes and improved their level of confidence and motivation to evaluate clinical performance. Issues arose in terms of time constraints and identifying suitable performance indicators. Future implementation of performance evaluations using the ASPIRE framework should take these issues in consideration to allow the tool to be refined and be relevant for use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.