Dataset Information

Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lack of physician involvement in quality improvement threatens the success and sustainability of quality improvement measures. It is therefore important to assess physicians´ interests and opportunities to be involved in quality improvement and their experiences of such participation, both in hospital and general practice.

Methods

A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted on a representative sample of physicians in different job positions in Norway in 2019.

Results

The response rate was 72.6% (1513 of 2085). A large proportion (85.7%) of the physicians wanted to participate in quality improvement, and 68.6% had actively done so in the last year. Physicians' interest in quality improvement and their active participation was significantly related to the designated time for quality improvement in their work-hour schedule (p < 0.001). Only 16.7% reported time designated for quality improvement in their own work hours. When time was designated, 86.6% of the physicians reported participation in quality improvement, compared to 63.7% when time was not specially designated.

Conclusions

This study shows that physicians want to participate in quality improvement, but only a few have designated time to allow continuous involvement. Physicians with designated time participate significantly more. Future quality programs should involve physicians more actively by explicitly designating their time to participate in quality improvement work. We need further studies to explore why managers do not facilitate physicians´ participation in quality improvement.

SUBMITTER: Deilkas ET

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9594954 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey.

Deilkås Ellen Tveter ET Rosta Judith J Baathe Fredrik F Søfteland Eirik E Lexberg Åse Stavland ÅS Røise Olav O Rø Karin Isaksson KI

BMC primary care 20221025 1

<h4>Background</h4>Lack of physician involvement in quality improvement threatens the success and sustainability of quality improvement measures. It is therefore important to assess physicians´ interests and opportunities to be involved in quality improvement and their experiences of such participation, both in hospital and general practice.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted on a representative sample of physicians in different job positions in Norway in 2019.<h4>Resul ...[more]

PMID: 36284296

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate use of data from a clinical quality registry for cardiac rehabilitation in Denmark, considering the extent to which data are used for local quality improvement and what facilitates the use of these data, with a particular focus on whether there are differences between frontline staff and managers.DesignCross-sectional nationwide survey study.Setting, methods and participantsA previously validated, Swedish questionnaire regarding use of data from clinical quality registries was translated and emailed to frontline staff, mid-level managers and heads of departments (n=175) in all 30 hospital departments participating in the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database. Data were analysed descriptively and through multiple linear regression.ResultsSurvey response rate was 58% (101/175). Reports of registry use at department level (measured through an index comprising seven items; score min 0, max 7, where a low score indicates less use of data) varied significantly between groups of respondents: frontline staff mean score 1.3 (SD=2.0), mid-level management mean 2.4 (SD=2.3) and heads of departments mean 3.0 (SD=2.5), p=0.006. Overall, department level use of data was positively associated with higher perceived data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.22, p=0.019), management request for data (regression coefficient=0.40, p=0.008) and personal motivation of the respondent (regression coefficient=1.63, p<0.001). Among managers, use of registry data was associated with data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.43, p=0.027), and among frontline staff, reported data use was associated with management involvement in quality improvement work (regression coefficient=0.90, p=0.017) and personal motivation (regression coefficient=1.66, p<0.001).ConclusionsThe findings suggest relatively sparse use of data in local quality improvement work. A complex interplay of factors seem to be associated with data use with varying aspects being of importance for frontline staff and managers.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent international guidelines on dyslipidemia are not concordant on various aspects of management. Also, there are no uniformly accepted Indian guidelines. We, therefore, performed a physician survey to understand lipid management practices in India.MethodsAn anonymous survey questionnaire was administered to gauge physicians' self-reported behavior regarding lipid management aspects. Results were expressed in terms of percentages based on the number of responses obtained.ResultsA total of 404 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent respondents ordered a lipid profile before starting statin therapy, and 80% preferred to set lipid targets, though the tools used for calculating cardiovascular risk varied. Atorvastatin was preferred over rosuvastatin in primary prevention (72.9 vs. 32.4%), secondary prevention (54.6 vs. 46.7%), diabetic patients (56.3 vs. 40.3%) and post-ACS (78.3 vs. 34%). High-intensity statins were preferred by 73.7% of respondents in post-ACS cases. Fifty percent doctors chose not to use a statin in diabetic patients, irrespective of their LDL-C levels. The most preferred drug option for managing atherogenic dyslipidemia and moderate hypertriglyceridemia was statin-fibrate combination (55.1%) and fibrates (35.4%), respectively. Sixty-three percent doctors preferred to prescribe statins in patients with moderately high LDL-C and normal triglycerides, without CHD or CHD risk equivalents. Around 28% of doctors preferred not to use pharmacotherapy for managing isolated low HDL. Of the participants, 73% used fibrates in ≤20% of their dyslipidemic patients, with fenofibrate being the most preferred (90.5%). Ezetimibe was mainly used in patients with uncontrolled LDL-C despite statin therapy (52.4% respondents). Most preferred approaches to manage statin intolerance included reducing statin dose (39%) and stopping and restarting statins at a lower dose (34.5%). Fifty-two percent of doctors chose not to alter pre-existing therapy in patients who had LDL-C levels at goal but elevated non-HDL-C levels.ConclusionThis is the first survey in India that provides useful insights into Indian physicians' self-reported perspectives on managing dyslipidemia in routine clinical practice. Despite concordance with the currently available guidelines in certain aspects, there is incongruence in managing specific dyslipidemia problems. Further continuing medical education and the development of evidence-based, India-specific lipid guidelines can help reduce some of these differences.

Project description:BackgroundThe province of British Columbia is facing a family physician shortage despite consistent increases in the number of physicians per capita and ongoing reforms to address the shortage. We identify physicians' priorities for structural reform, describe the alignment of those priorities with BC's suite of reforms and compare responses between established physicians and those new to practice; we also assessed rates of burnout.MethodsAll family physicians credentialed within Vancouver Coastal Health in 2018 were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their practice model and characteristics, demographics, level of burnout and reform priorities. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between personal and practice characteristics, burnout and reform priorities.ResultsOf the 1017 family physicians invited to participate, 525 (51.6%) responded. Of these, 399 (76.0%) indicated a need for fundamental change to how primary care is delivered; 244 (46.4%) would prefer to be a clinic employee rather than a small business owner. Other reform priorities included options to practise in a team (stated as very important by 69.6% of respondents), direct funding for team roles (66.7%), direct clinic funding (59.8%), part-time work options (64.7%), and ability to take planned vacations and parental leave (81.1%). The importance of individual reform priorities varied based on the participants' model of practice, location and years in practice. Of respondents, 108 (21.1%) had experienced a high level of burnout.InterpretationAlmost half of family physicians would prefer to be employees rather than small business owners and over 20% reported a high level of burnout. Practice models offering direct employment model have very limited availability and are not included in the current suite of reforms in BC, potentially pulling physicians away from community-based family medicine and into other models or specialties.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence and accuracy of industry-related financial conflict of interest (COI) disclosures among US physician guideline authors.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingClinical practice guidelines published by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies in 2020.ParticipantsUS physician guideline authors.Main outcome measuresFinancial COI disclosures, both self-reported and determined using Open Payments data.ResultsAmong 270 US physician authors of 20 clinical practice guidelines, 101 (37.4%) disclosed industry-related financial COIs, whereas 199 (73.7%) were found to have received payments from industry when accounting for payments disclosed through Open Payments. The median payments received by authors during the 3-year period was US$27 451 (IQR, US$1385-US$254 677). Comparing authors' self-disclosures with Open Payments, 72 (26.7%) of the authors accurately disclosed their financial COIs, including 68 (25.2%) accurately disclosing no financial COIs and 4 (1.5%) accurately disclosing a financial COI. In contrast, 101 (37.4%) disclosed no financial COIs and were found to have received payments from industry, 23 (8.5%) disclosed a financial COI but had under-reported payments received from industry, 14 (5.2%) disclosed a financial COI but had over-reported payments received from industry and 60 (22.2%) disclosed a financial COI but were found to have both under-reported and over-reported payments received from industry. We found that inaccurate COI disclosure was more frequent among professors compared with non-professors (81.9% vs 63.5%; p<0.001) and among males compared with females (77.7% vs 64.8%; p=0.02). The accuracy of disclosures also varied among medical professional societies (p<0.001).ConclusionsFinancial relationships with industry are common among US physician authors of clinical practice guidelines and are often not accurately disclosed. To ensure high-quality guidelines and unbiased recommendations, more effort is needed to minimise existing COIs and improve disclosure accuracy among panel members.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of patient-physician discussions about chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care has not been studied previously. STUDY DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS:We audiotaped encounters between 236 patients with hypertension and their primary care physicians (n = 40). PREDICTORS:Patient, physician, and encounter characteristics. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS:We described the occurrence and characteristics (content, use of technical terms, and physician assessment of patient comprehension of new concepts) of CKD discussions. We assessed patient and physician characteristics associated with CKD discussion occurrence. RESULTS:Many patients (mean age, 59 years) had uncontrolled hypertension (51%), diabetes (44%), and/or 3 or more comorbid conditions (51%). Most primary care physicians practiced (52%) fewer than 10 years. CKD discussions occurred in few (26%; n = 61) encounters, with content focused on laboratory assessment (89%), risk-factor treatment (28%), and causes (26%) of CKD. In encounters that included a CKD discussion, physicians used technical terms (28%; n = 17) and rarely assessed patients' comprehension (2%; n = 1). CKD discussions were statistically significantly less common in visits of patients with some (vs no) college education (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56), with 3 or more (vs fewer) comorbid conditions (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96), and who saw physicians with more (vs fewer) than 10 years of practice experience (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80). CKD discussions were more common during longer encounters (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.65) and encounters in which diabetes was (vs was not) discussed (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.77). LIMITATIONS:Generalizability of our findings may be limited. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-physician discussions about CKD in high-risk primary care patients were infrequent. Physicians used technical terms and infrequently assessed patients' understanding of new CKD concepts. Efforts to improve the frequency and content of patient-physician CKD discussions in primary care could improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Dataset Information

Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets