Dataset Information

Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate whether accreditation of general practice in Denmark promotes patient-reported quality of care and patient satisfaction.

Design

A national cluster randomised case control study based on an online version of the Danish Patients Evaluate Practice questionnaire. Mixed effects ordered logit regression models taking account of clustering of patients in different municipalities were used in the analyses.

Setting

General practice in Denmark.

Participants

A representative sample of the Danish population.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was patient-reported quality of care, and patient satisfaction with general practice and patient satisfaction with the general practitioner served as secondary outcome measures.

Results

In total, 3609 respondents answered the survey. We found no statistically significant relationships between patient-reported quality of care and practice accreditation (2016: OR=0.89, 95%?CI 0.73 to 1.07 and 2017: OR=0.85, 95%?CI 0.71 to 1.02) and between patient satisfaction with the general practitioner and accreditation (2016: OR=0.93, 95%?CI 0.76 to 1.13 and 2017: OR=0.86, 95%?CI 0.70 to 1.04). However, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and recent practice accreditation compared with satisfaction with practices not yet accredited (OR=0.81, 95%?CI 0.67 to 0.97) but no significant relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and previous accreditation (OR=0.91, 95%?CI 0.76 to 1.09).

Conclusion

Accreditation does not promote patient-reported quality of care or patient satisfaction. On the contrary, patient satisfaction with the general practice decreases when general practice is recently accredited.

SUBMITTER: Riisgaard H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7295420 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment.

Riisgaard Helle H Waldorff Frans Boch FB Kirstine Andersen Merethe M Pedersen Line Bjørnskov LB

BMJ open 20200611 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether accreditation of general practice in Denmark promotes patient-reported quality of care and patient satisfaction.<h4>Design</h4>A national cluster randomised case control study based on an online version of the Danish Patients Evaluate Practice questionnaire. Mixed effects ordered logit regression models taking account of clustering of patients in different municipalities were used in the analyses.<h4>Setting</h4>General practice in Denmark.<h4>Participant ...[more]

PMID: 32532767

Similar Datasets

Project description:Interventions: Future Health Today (FHT) trial is testing a quality improvement (QI) program in order to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer in general practice. The intervention consists of: 1.Technology platform consisting of audit, point of care clinical decision support, and QI templates. Practices will generate a baseline cohort of patients using the audit tool at the beginning of the trial. The progress of the cohort will be automatically updated using the Future Health Today platform over the trial duration. Practices will be encouraged to review their progress and complete a minimum of three reviews of audit data as part of an accredited Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) quality improvement activity. These can be carried out at any time during the trial, but we will recommend that they are conducted at least once every four months over the 12-month trial period. The point of care tool will automatically deploy when the electronic medical record of an eligible patient is opened and will provide a prompt regarding guideline-concordant care. The QI template has been developed specifically for this study, and aligns to RACGP requirements. 2.ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) education activities. ECHO sessions are delivered using the zoom videoconference platform. The 60-minute sessions consist of (1) Introductions of participants (2) Delivery of a short didactic lecture (approximately 10 minutes in duration), followed by question and answer session (3) Presentation of a clinical case by a participant followed by feedback from participants and an expert panel. Each arm will receive 3 ECHO sessions based on their allocation (see below). T Primary outcome(s): Proportion of eligible patients with CKD (coded diagnosis or pathology consistent with diagnosis of CKD) that are receiving ACE inhibitors or Angiotensin receptor blockers and/or statins consistent with Kidney Health Australia, RACGP Red Book and National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance Guidelines.[ 12 months post-baseline];Proportion of eligible patients at risk of undiagnosed prostate, oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, endometrial, lung or ovarian cancer that have been assessed and investigated according to NICE, Cancer Council Australia, Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia guidelines. This will be assessed utilising data extracted from electronic medical records and stored in the Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne Patron dataset. [ 12 months post-baseline] Study Design: Purpose: Educational / counselling / training; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Blinded (masking used);Assignment: Parallel;Type of endpoint: Efficacy

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare accreditation is a widely implemented tool used to enhance the quality of care and underpin quality control. However, research is sparse on the accreditation process in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how team-based implementation activities preceding accreditation were associated with self-perceived improvements in emergency preparedness (preparedness for urgent disease and cardiac arrest) and handling of prescription renewals in Danish general practice.MethodsGPs (general practitioners) completed a questionnaire exploring practice-team activities conducted to implement two specific accreditation standards and the related improvements as perceived by the GPs. The following implementation activities were selected, inspired by Normalization Process Theory: Common understanding (obtaining a common understanding of the purpose of implementing changes according to the accreditation standard), key person (assigning a key person responsible for working with the standard), and easy integration (finding it easy to integrate changes into existing working procedures). Data were analysed with logistic regression, and adjusted analyses included practice type, number of GP partners, number of staff, training site for junior GPs and administrative region.ResultsThe total response rate was 74% (n = 920). Around 80% of the clinics reported having conducted team-based implementation activities. Almost half of the clinics (48%) reported perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness, and 30% reported perceived improvements in the handling of prescription renewals. Obtaining a common understanding was found to have a strong, significant association with perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness (OR = 5.07 (3.06-8.40)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 3.66 (2.07-6.46)). Easy integration of changes was also significantly associated with improvements in both emergency preparedness (OR = 1.88 (1.24-2.85)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 2.34 (1.44-3.79)), whereas assigning a key person was only significantly associated with improved emergency preparedness (OR = 1.95 (1.19-3.19)).ConclusionClinical quality initiatives that involve collaboration within a practice team are more likely to cause improvements if specific team-based implementation activities are conducted. It is particularly important to facilitate a common understanding of the purpose of the initiative. Therefore, external support for quality initiatives aiming at the practice level in general practice should facilitate such team-based activities.

Project description:ObjectivesRegular breast cancer screening is a widely used cancer prevention strategy. Important quality indicators of screening include cancer detection rate, false positive rate, benign biopsy rate and post-screen invasive cancer rate. We compared quality indicators of community radiology clinics to those of 'Screen Test', which feature centralised batch reading and quality control processes. Both types of providers operated under a single provincial Breast Cancer Screening Programme.SettingCommunity radiology clinics are operated by independent fee-for-service radiologists serving large and small communities throughout the Canadian province of Alberta. Launched by the provincial cancer agency, the Screen Test operates two physical clinics serving metropolises and mobile units serving remote regions. Eligible women may self-refer to any provider for screening mammography.ParticipantsWomen aged 50 to 69 years who had at least one screening mammogram between July 2006 and June 2010 in Alberta were included. Women with missing health region information or prior breast cancer diagnosis were excluded.ResultsA total of 389 788 screening mammograms were analysed, of which 12.7% were performed by Screen Test. Compared with Screen Test during 2006 to 2008, community radiology clinics had a lower cancer detection rate (3.6 vs 4.6 per 1000 screens, risk ratio (RR): 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98) and a much higher false positive rate (9.4% vs 3.4%, RR: 2.72, 95% CI: 2.55 to 2.90). Most other performance indicators were also better in Screen Test overall and across all health regions. These performance indicators were similar during 2008 to 2010, showing no improvement with time.ConclusionsScreen Test has a quality assurance process in place and performed significantly better. This provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a quality assurance process and may explain some of the large differences in breast cancer screening indicators between provinces and countries with formal programmes and those without.

Project description:IntroductionManaging patients with multiple conditions (multimorbidity) is a major challenge for healthcare systems internationally, particularly in older patients. Multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy increase treatment burden and the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and both are complex to manage in primary care. Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into general practice teams could improve medication management for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Building on findings from a non-randomised, uncontrolled General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) feasibility study conducted in Irish primary care, the aim of this study is to conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the GPP study, to assess feasibility, intervention impact, costs and appropriateness of continuing to a definitive cRCT.Methods and analysisThis pilot cRCT will involve 8 general practitioner (GP) practices and 120 patients. Practices will identify and recruit patients aged ≥65 years, who are taking ≥10 regular medications. Practices will be allocated to intervention or control after baseline data collection. Intervention practices will have a pharmacist integrated within their service, working with GPs, patients and practice staff to optimise prescribing and other medication-related activities. Control practices will provide standard GP care. The primary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, uptake of medication reviews and study retention. For the primary clinical outcome, the number of potentially inappropriate prescribing incidences per patient will be collected. Secondary outcomes will include medication-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and data pertaining to the role and impact of the pharmacist on prescribing. In addition, economic and process evaluations will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committee and will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN Registry (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18752158).

Project description:BackgroundFew patients with lower bowel symptoms who consult their general practitioner need a specialist opinion. However data from referred patients suggest that those who are referred would benefit from detailed assessment before referral.MethodsA cluster randomised factorial trial. 44 general practices in North Trent, UK. Practices were offered either an electronic interactive referral pro forma, an educational outreach visit by a local colorectal surgeon, both or neither. The main outcome measure was the proportion of cases with severe diverticular disease, cancer or precancerous lesions and inflammatory bowel disease in those referred by each group. A secondary outcome was a referral letter quality score. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify key themes relating to the use of the softwareResultsFrom 150 invitations, 44 practices were recruited with a total list size of 265,707. There were 716 consecutive referrals recorded over a six-month period, for which a diagnosis was available for 514. In the combined software arms 14% (37/261) had significant pathology, compared with 19% (49/253) in the non-software arms, relative risk 0.73 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.15). In the combined educational outreach arms 15% (38/258) had significant pathology compared with 19% (48/256) in the non-educational arms, relative risk 0.79 (95% CI: 0.50 to 1.24). Pro forma practices documented better assessment of patients at referral.ConclusionThere was a lack of evidence that either intervention increased the proportion of patients with organic pathology among those referred. The interactive software did improve the amount of information relayed in referral letters although we were unable to confirm if this made a significant difference to patients or their health care providers. The potential value of either intervention may have been diminished by their limited uptake within the context of a cluster randomised clinical trial. A number of lessons were learned in this trial of novel innovations.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2018, the concept of clusters was introduced as a new model for data-driven quality improvement in general practice in Denmark. However, there is little research on the development and implementation of general practice clusters. The study explores how the cluster coordinators responsible for leading the clusters forward enacted and experienced their role during the early years of the clusters with attention to the challenges and enablers perceived in the process.MethodsQualitative, semi-structured interviews with 25 cluster coordinators from clusters that had carried out at least two meetings on a specific professional topic. The coordinators represented clusters of varying sizes and different geographic locations. Key topics in the interview guide were the development and structure of the cluster, the role of the coordinator, obtainment of data for the meetings, the role of external support, the form and content of the meetings, the participation and engagement of the members. A thematic analysis - shaped by the original aims and categories of the study while also being open to emerging themes - was performed on the transcribed interview material.ResultsImportant enablers in the process of developing the clusters included the positive engagement of the GPs, the support offered by regional quality units and a national quality organisation for general practice, and the funding provided by the formal cluster framework. Challenges initially included setting up the clusters administratively and translating the open cluster concept into a local, workable model; and later obtaining relevant data for the cluster meetings and facilitating peer discussions about the data.ConclusionThe coordinators generally experienced that the development of the clusters had progressed relatively fast with engagement from most of the participating GPs. Still, challenges with data obtainment, data analysis, and facilitation will have to be addressed ongoingly. Future research should investigate learning processes at the cluster meetings and how the clusters impact clinical practice and collaborative relations between general practice and other health care providers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Falls are common among older people, and General Practitioners (GPs) could play an important role in implementing strategies to manage fall risk. Despite this, fall prevention is not a routine activity in general practice settings. The iSOLVE cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate implementation of a fall prevention decision tool in general practice. This paper sought to describe the strategies used and reflect on the enablers and barriers relevant to successful recruitment of general practices, GPs and their patients. METHODS:Recruitment was conducted within the geographical area of a Primary Health Network in Northern Sydney, Australia. General practices and GPs were engaged via online surveys, mailed invitations to participate, educational workshops, practitioner networks and promotional practice visits. Patients 65?years or older were recruited via mailed invitations, incorporating the practice letterhead and the name(s) of participating GP(s). Observations of recruitment strategies, results and enabling factors were recorded in field notes as descriptive and narrative data, and analysed using mixed-methods. RESULTS:It took 19?months to complete recruitment of 27 general practices, 75 GPs and 560 patients. The multiple strategies used to engage general practices and GPs were collectively useful in reaching the targeted sample size. Practice visits were valuable in engaging GPs and staff, establishing interest in fall prevention and commitment to the trial. A mix of small, medium and large practices were recruited. While some were recruited as a whole-practice, other practices had few or half of the number of GPs recruited. The importance of preventing falls in older patients, simplicity of research design, provision of resources and logistic facilitation of patient recruitment appealed to GPs. Recruitment of older patients was successfully achieved by mailed invitations which was a strategy that was familiar to practice staff and patients. Patient response rates were above the expected 10% for most practices. Many practices (n =?17) achieved the targeted number of 20 or more patients. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment in general practice settings can be successfully achieved through multiple recruitment strategies, effective communication and rapport building, ensuring research topic and design suit general practice needs, and using familiar communication strategies to engage patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was prospectively registered on 29 April 2015 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry www.anzctr.org.au (trial ID: ACTRN12615000401550).

Dataset Information

Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets