Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.
(1/48)
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the benefits and disadvantages of clinical and medical audit, and to assess the main facilitators and barriers to conducting the audit process. DESIGN: A comprehensive literature review was undertaken through a thorough review of Medline and CINAHL databases using the keywords of "audit", "audit of audits", and "evaluation of audits" and a handsearch of the indexes of relevant journals for key papers. RESULTS: Findings from 93 publications were reviewed. These ranged from single case studies of individual audit projects through retrospective reviews of departmental audit programmes to studies of interface projects between primary and secondary care. The studies reviewed incorporated the experiences of a wide variety of clinicians, from medical consultants to professionals allied to medicine and from those involved in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary ventures. Perceived benefits of audit included improved communication among colleagues and other professional groups, improved patient care, increased professional satisfaction, and better administration. Some disadvantages of audit were perceived as diminished clinical ownership, fear of litigation, hierarchical and territorial suspicions, and professional isolation. The main barriers to clinical audit can be classified under five main headings. These are lack of resources, lack of expertise or advice in project design and analysis, problems between groups and group members, lack of an overall plan for audit, and organisational impediments. Key facilitating factors to audit were also identified: they included modern medical records systems, effective training, dedicated staff, protected time, structured programmes, and a shared dialogue between purchasers and providers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical audit can be a valuable assistance to any programme which aims to improve the quality of health care and its delivery. Yet without a coherent strategy aimed at nurturing effective audits, valuable opportunities will be lost. Paying careful attention to the professional attitudes highlighted in this review may help audit to deliver on some of its promise. (+info)
Research in primary care: extent of involvement and perceived determinants among practitioners from one English region.
(2/48)
The lack of research evidence relevant to and generated by general practitioners (GPs) has been a concern in the context of a putative primary care-led National Health Service (NHS). However, very little has been published on the current extent or determinants of research activity among United Kingdom primary care doctors. We surveyed all (n = 2770) service GPs in the West Midlands Region in order to quantify their research involvement and to explore determinants of this. The response rate was 49% (n = 1351). A total of 84% of responders reported participating in research or audit, with 16% having initiated their own research; 9% of GPs had been published in a peer-reviewed journal; 6% had generated research funding; and 3% had held a research training fellowship. The characteristics positively associated with initiating research included an involvement in teaching, having research-active partners, the availability of protected time, and working in a larger practice. The most commonly perceived barriers to undertaking research were lack of time (92%), lack of staff to collect data (73%), and a lack of funding (71%). In all, 41% of responders reported no interest in research. Overall, the extent of research activity among responding GPs appears to be greater than is often assumed. Recent NHS research and development proposals to strengthen and develop research in primary care are, therefore, relevant in highlighting changes to address these issues. (+info)
Patients' experiences of receiving telephone advice from a GP co-operative.
(3/48)
BACKGROUND: The use of the telephone to deliver health care advice has increased considerably in recent years. Little research has been carried out to explore the experience of patients who receive such advice and its acceptability. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe the expectations of patients, or third party callers, who had contacted a GP out-of-hours co-operative and their satisfaction with telephone advice received. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone 7-10 days after contact with one inner city GP co-operative. RESULTS: A total of 47 telephone consultations were followed up with an interview. Of these, 23 (48.9%) callers had expected to be offered a home visit when they called. Reasons for wanting a home visit were either to do with the nature of the condition and its perceived severity, problems in being able to attend the primary care centre and the risks of travel, or because of problems in communicating over the telephone. Satisfaction with telephone consultations centred mostly on the doctor being able to provide reassurance and give adequate time to allay concerns. The most common reasons given for dissatisfaction were the caller feeling that the doctor could not make a correct diagnosis without having seen the patient, or the caller being made to feel that they were wasting the doctor's time. Many patients were anxious about their ability to describe symptoms over the telephone, or understand and follow the advice that they received. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a need for patients to be better informed about the service they can expect to receive from GP co-operatives. Recent developments such as NHS Direct may have an influence on the telephone consultation rate to GP co-operatives. (+info)
Characteristics of general practices involved in undergraduate medical teaching.
(4/48)
BACKGROUND: The movement of medical education into the community has accelerated the development of a new model of general practice in which core clinical services are complemented by educational and research activities involving the whole primary care team. AIM: To compare quality indicators, workload characteristics, and health authority income of general practices involved in undergraduate medical education in east London with those of other practices in the area and national figures where available. DESIGN OF STUDY: A comprehensive survey of undergraduate and postgraduate clinical placements and practice-based research activity within general practice. SETTING: One-hundred and sixty-one practices based in East London and the City Health Authority (ELCHA). METHOD: Cross-sectional survey comparing routinely-collected information on practice resources, workload, income, and performance between teaching and non-teaching practices. RESULTS: In east London, teaching practices are larger partnerships with smaller list sizes, higher staff costs, and better quality premises than non-teaching practices. Teaching practices demonstrate significantly better performance on quality indicators, such as cervical cytology coverage and prescribing indicators. Patient-related health authority income per whole time equivalent (WTE) general practitioner (GP) is significantly lower among teaching practices. A multiple regression analysis was used to explore the association between teaching status and income. Eighty-eight per cent of the variation in patient-related income could be explained by the combination of list size, list turnover, removals at doctor's request, quality of premises, and immunisation and cytology rates. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that practice involvement in undergraduate education in east London is associated with higher scores on a range of organisational and performance quality indicators. The lower patient-related income of teaching practices is associated with smaller list sizes and may only be partially replaced by teaching income. Lower vacancy rates suggest that teaching practices are more attractive to doctors seeking partnerships in east London. (+info)
Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage.
(5/48)
The substantial interest and investment in health partnerships in the United States is based on the assumption that collaboration is more effective in achieving health and health system goals than efforts carried out by single agents. A clear conceptualization of the mechanism that accounts for the collaborative advantage, and a way to measure it are needed to test this assumption and to strengthen the capacity of partnerships to realize the full potential of collaboration. The mechanism that gives collaboration its unique advantage is synergy. A framework for operationalizing and assessing partnership synergy, and for identifying its likely determinants, can be used to address critical policy, evaluation, and management issues related to collaboration. (+info)
Primary health care services provided by nurse practitioners and family physicians in shared practice.
(6/48)
BACKGROUND: Collaborative practice involving nurse practitioners (NPs) and family physicians (FPs) is undergoing a renaissance in Canada. However, it is not understood what services are delivered by FPs and NPs working collaboratively. One objective of this study was to determine what primary health care services are provided to patients by NPs and FPs working in the same rural practice setting. METHODS: Baseline data from 2 rural Ontario primary care practices that participated in a pilot study of an outreach intervention to improve structured collaborative practice between NPs and FPs were analyzed to compare service provision by NPs and FPs. A total of 2 NPs and 4 FPs participated in data collection for 400 unique patient encounters over a 2-month period; the data included reasons for the visit, services provided during the visit and recommendations for further care. Indices of service delivery and descriptive statistics were generated to compare service provision by NPs and FPs. RESULTS: We analzyed data from a total of 122 encounters involving NPs and 278 involving FPs. The most frequent reason for visiting an NP was to undergo a periodic health examination (27% of reasons for visit), whereas the most frequent reason for visiting an FP was cardiovascular disease other than hypertension (8%). Delivery of health promotion services was similar for NPs and FPs (11.3 v. 10.0 instances per full-time equivalent [FTE]). Delivery of curative services was lower for NPs than for FPs (18.8 v. 29.3 instances per FTE), as was provision of rehabilitative services (15.0 v. 63.7 instances per FTE). In contrast, NPs provided more services related to disease prevention (78.8 v. 55.7 instances per FTE) and more supportive services (43.8 v. 33.7 instances per FTE) than FPs. Of the 173 referrals made during encounters with FPs, follow-up with an FP was recommended in 132 (76%) cases and with an NP in 3 (2%). Of the 79 referrals made during encounters with NPs, follow-up with an NP was recommended in 47 (59%) cases and with an FP in 13 (16%) (p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: For the practices in this study NPs were underutilized with regard to curative and rehabilitative care. Referral patterns indicate little evidence of bidirectional referral (a measure of shared care). Explanations for the findings include medicolegal issues related to shared responsibility, lack of interdisciplinary education and lack of familiarity with the scope of NP practice. (+info)
Morale among general practitioners: qualitative study exploring relations between partnership arrangements, personal style, and workload.
(7/48)
OBJECTIVES: To explore general practitioners' experiences of wellbeing and distress at work, to identify their perceptions of the causes of and solutions to distress, and to draw out implications for improving morale in general practice. DESIGN: Three stage qualitative study consisting of one to one unstructured interviews, one to one guided interviews, and focus groups. SETTING: Fife, Lothian, and the Borders, South East Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 63 general practitioner principals. RESULTS: Morale of general practitioners was explained by the complex interrelations between factors. Three key factors were identified: workload, personal style, and practice arrangements. Workload was commonly identified as a cause of low morale, but partnership arrangements were also a key mediating variable between increasing workload and external changes in general practice on the one hand and individual responses to these changes on the other. Integrated interventions at personal, partnership, and practice levels were seen to make considerable contributions to improving morale. Effective partnerships helped individuals to manage workload, but increasing workload was also seen to take away time and opportunities for practices to manage change and to build supportive and effective working environments. CONCLUSIONS: Solutions to the problem of low morale need integrated initiatives at individual, partnership, practice, and policy levels. Improving partnership arrangements is a key intervention, and rigorous action research is needed to evaluate different approaches. (+info)
General practice partnerships: till death us do part?
(8/48)
OBJECTIVES: To investigate applications for general practice partnership vacancies by established general practitioner principals, the reasons for changing partnerships, and the disincentives to these moves. DESIGN: Confidential postal questionnaire. SUBJECTS: Applicants to 367 general practices in the United Kingdom advertising for a new full time partner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of job applications containing at least one application from established principals, proportion of principals appointed as new partners, incentives and disincentives to changing partnership. RESULTS: Of 325 replies (89% response rate) received, 292 were suitable for further analysis. 210/241 (87%) of all applications contained some applications from at least one established principal. 12% of all applications were made by principals. 41/296 (14%) of the newly appointed partners had previously been an established principal. The main reasons for leaving the previous partnership were a desire to move locality or not getting on with previous partners. The disincentives to changing partnerships were largely financial, including the cost of the move and loss of income. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible for established principals in general practice to overcome the disincentives and to change partnerships. There did not seem to be any overall prejudice against appointing principals, in contrast to previously published views. (+info)