Dataset Information

Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Little is known about the quality of clinical care provided outside the hospital sector, despite the increasingly important role of clinical generalists working in primary care. In this study we aimed to summarise published evaluations of the quality of clinical care provided in general practice in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

Design

A systematic review of published studies assessing the quality of clinical care in general practice for the period 1995-9.

Setting

General practice based care in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Main outcome measures-Study design, sampling strategy and size, clinical conditions studied, quality of care attained for each condition (compared with explicit or implicit standards for the process of care), and country of origin for each study.

Results

Ninety papers fulfilled the entry criteria for the review, 80 from the UK, six from Australia, and four from New Zealand. Two thirds of the studies assessed care in self-selected practices and 20% of the studies were based in single practices. The majority (85.5%) examined the quality of care provided for chronic conditions including cardiovascular disease (22%), hypertension (14%), diabetes (14%), and asthma (13%). A further 12% and 2% examined preventive care and acute conditions, respectively. In almost all studies the processes of care did not attain the standards set out in national guidelines or those set by the researchers themselves. For example, in the highest achieving practices 49% of diabetic patients had had their fundii examined in the previous year and 47% of eligible patients had been prescribed beta blockers after an acute myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

This study adopts an overview of the magnitude and the nature of clinical quality problems in general practice in three countries. Most of the studies in the systematic review come from the UK and the small number of papers from Australia and New Zealand make it more difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care in these two countries. The review helps to identify deficiencies in the research, clinical and policy agendas in a part of the health care system where quality of care has been largely ignored to date. Further work is required to evaluate the quality of clinical care in a representative sample of the population, to identify the reasons for substandard care, and to test strategies to improve the clinical care provided in general practice.

SUBMITTER: Seddon ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1743427 | biostudies-literature | 2001 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Seddon M E ME Marshall M N MN Campbell S M SM Roland M O MO

Quality in health care : QHC 20010901 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Little is known about the quality of clinical care provided outside the hospital sector, despite the increasingly important role of clinical generalists working in primary care. In this study we aimed to summarise published evaluations of the quality of clinical care provided in general practice in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review of published studies assessing the quality of clinical care in general practice for the period 1995-9.<h4>Setti ...[more]

PMID: 11533422

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs.MethodsMixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data.ResultsReflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts.ConclusionsGeneral practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

Project description:BackgroundThe inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia.MethodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists' characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training.ConclusionThis review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

Project description:IntroductionObesity is a global pandemic that affects all socioeconomic strata, however, the highest figures have been observed in the most disadvantaged social groups. Evidence from the USA and Canada showed that specific urban settings encourage obesogenic behaviour in the population living and/or working there. We aim to examine the evidence on the association between local food environments and obesity in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.MethodsSix databases from 1990 to 2017 will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Web of Science. Grey literature will also be sought by searching Opengrey Europe, The Grey Literature Report and relevant government websites. Additional studies will be retrieved from the reference lists of the selected articles. It will include cohort, longitudinal, case study and cross-sectional studies that have assessed the relationship between local food environments and obesity in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand regardless of sex, age and ethnicity of the population. Two researchers will independently select the studies and extract the data. Data items will incorporate: author names, title, study design, year of study, year exposure data collected, country, city, urban/rural, age range, study exclusions, special characteristics of study populations, aims, working definitions of food environments and food outlets, exposure and methods of data collection, outcomes and key findings. A narrative synthesis and a summary of the results will be produced separately for children and adults, according to the type of food exposure-outcome. All the selected studies will be assessed using The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be based on published literature, and therefore ethical approval has not been sought. Our findings will be presented at relevant national and international scientific conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:Background:Foot orthoses are frequently used but little is known about which types are used in contemporary practice. This study aimed to explore the types of foot orthoses currently used by podiatrists and the prescription variations in a range of conditions. Methods:A web-based, cross-sectional survey was distributed through professional bodies in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. Questions focussed on foot orthosis prescription habits in relation to 26 conditions affecting the back and lower limb. Results:Two hundred and sixty-four podiatrists practising in 19 different countries completed the survey; the majority practised in the UK (47%, n?=?124), Australia (30%, n?=?79) and New Zealand (12%, n?=?32). Respondents qualified between 1968 and 2016, and 147 (56%) were female. Respondents worked in different healthcare sectors and this varied between countries: 42 (34%) respondents in the UK worked solely in the public sector, compared to 3 (4%) in Australia and 2 (6%) in New Zealand. Forty-four (35%) respondents in the UK worked solely in private practice, compared to 64 (81%) in Australia and 14 (44%) in New Zealand.UK respondents prescribed more prefabricated orthoses per week (mean 5.5 pairs) than simple insole-type devices (±2.7) and customised devices (±2.9). Similarly, respondents in New Zealand prescribed more prefabricated orthoses per week (±7.7) than simple (±1.4) and customised (±2.8) devices. In contrast, those in Australia prescribed more customised orthoses per week (±4.4) than simple (±0.8) and prefabricated (±1.9) orthoses. Differences in the types of orthoses prescribed were observed between country of practice, working sector, and the condition targeted. Generally, prefabricated orthoses were commonly prescribed for the 26 highlighted conditions in the UK and New Zealand. Australian podiatrists prescribed far fewer devices overall, but when they did prescribe, they were more likely to prescribe custom devices. Respondents in all three countries were more likely to prescribe customised orthoses for people with diabetes complicated by peripheral neuropathy than for diabetes without this complication. Conclusions:Foot orthosis prescription habits vary between countries. Prefabricated orthoses were frequently prescribed in the UK and New Zealand, and customised orthoses in Australia. Prescriptions for people with diabetes differed depending on the presence of neuropathy, despite a lack of robust evidence supporting these decisions. This study provides new insight into contemporary practice.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets