BACKGROUND: Practice management (PM) in general practice is as yet ill-defined; a systematic description of its domain, as well as a valid method to assess it, are necessary for research and assessment. AIM: To develop and validate a method to assess PM of general practitioners (GPs) and practices. METHOD: Relevant and potentially discriminating indicators were selected from a systematic framework of 2410 elements of PM to be used in an assessment method (VIP = visit instrument PM). The method was first tested in a pilot study and, after revision, was evaluated in order to select discriminating indicators and to determine validity of dimensions (factor and reliability analysis, linear regression). RESULTS: One hundred and ten GPs were assessed with the practice visit method using 249 indicators; 208 of these discriminated sufficiently at practice level or at GP level. Factor analysis resulted in 34 dimensions and in a taxonomy of PM. Dimensions and indicators showed marked variation between GPs and practices. Training practices scored higher on five dimensions; single-handed and dispensing practices scored lower on delegated tasks, but higher on accessibility and availability. CONCLUSION: A visit method to assess PM has been developed and its validity studied systematically. The taxonomy and dimensions of PM were in line with other classifications. Selection of a balanced number of useful and relevant indicators was nevertheless difficult. The dimensions could discriminate between groups of GPs and practices, establishing the value of the method for assessment. The VIP method could be an important contribution to the introduction of continuous quality improvement in the profession.
BACKGROUND: Practice management (PM) in general practice is as yet ill-defined; a systematic description of its domain, as well as a valid method to assess it, are necessary for research and assessment. AIM: To develop and validate a method to assess PM of general practitioners (GPs) and practices. METHOD: Relevant and potentially discriminating indicators were selected from a systematic framework of 2410 elements of PM to be used in an assessment method (VIP = visit instrument PM). The method was first tested in a pilot study and, after revision, was evaluated in order to select discriminating indicators and to determine validity of dimensions (factor and reliability analysis, linear regression). RESULTS: One hundred and ten GPs were assessed with the practice visit method using 249 indicators; 208 of these discriminated sufficiently at practice level or at GP level. Factor analysis resulted in 34 dimensions and in a taxonomy of PM. Dimensions and indicators showed marked variation between GPs and practices. Training practices scored higher on five dimensions; single-handed and dispensing practices scored lower on delegated tasks, but higher on accessibility and availability. CONCLUSION: A visit method to assess PM has been developed and its validity studied systematically. The taxonomy and dimensions of PM were in line with other classifications. Selection of a balanced number of useful and relevant indicators was nevertheless difficult. The dimensions could discriminate between groups of GPs and practices, establishing the value of the method for assessment. The VIP method could be an important contribution to the introduction of continuous quality improvement in the profession.
Authors: Nancy E Winslade; Robyn M Tamblyn; Laurel K Taylor; Lambert W T Schuwirth; Cees P M Van der Vleuten Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: R Grol; M Wensing; J Mainz; H P Jung; P Ferreira; H Hearnshaw; P Hjortdahl; F Olesen; S Reis; M Ribacke; J Szecsenyi Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Arna L van Doorn-Klomberg; Jozé C C Braspenning; René J Wolters; Margriet Bouma; Wim J C de Grauw; Michel Wensing Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Pieter van den Hombergh; Beat Künzi; Glyn Elwyn; Jan van Doremalen; Reinier Akkermans; Richard Grol; Michel Wensing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Rose Anne Devlin; William Hogg; Jianwei Zhong; Michael Shortt; Simone Dahrouge; Grant Russell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 2.655