OBJECTIVES: To perform a process evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve cardiovascular and diabetes care in general practice. METHODS: The feasibility of the intervention, carried out by outreach visitors in 62 practices, was addressed by evaluating whether the intervention programme was performed as planned and the extent to which it was accepted by the practice team. In addition, the costs of the programme were determined. RESULTS: The intervention was largely carried out as planned, although the intervention period had to be extended by three months. Of the 18 topics that could be addressed during the intervention period, 12 (mean) were addressed. The number of outreach visits per practice was 15.2 (mean), each visit lasted about one hour. Most practice members endorsed both the key recommendations for clinical decision-making and cardiovascular risk profiling. The majority of GPs (range 63-98%) agreed with the guidelines for clinical decision-making, and 29-97% had a positive opinion about the guidelines for practice organisation. According to practice staff members, the outreach visitor had sufficient knowledge and skills to support them in changing the practice organisation. GPs were less positive about the outreach visitor's knowledge and skills in optimising clinical decision-making; however 78% believed that the outreach visitor contributed to effecting change in their clinical decision-making. The total costs of the intervention per practice were Euro 4317. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation demonstrated that the intervention was usually carried out as planned and achieved a high satisfaction rating from the participating practice members.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a process evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve cardiovascular and diabetes care in general practice. METHODS: The feasibility of the intervention, carried out by outreach visitors in 62 practices, was addressed by evaluating whether the intervention programme was performed as planned and the extent to which it was accepted by the practice team. In addition, the costs of the programme were determined. RESULTS: The intervention was largely carried out as planned, although the intervention period had to be extended by three months. Of the 18 topics that could be addressed during the intervention period, 12 (mean) were addressed. The number of outreach visits per practice was 15.2 (mean), each visit lasted about one hour. Most practice members endorsed both the key recommendations for clinical decision-making and cardiovascular risk profiling. The majority of GPs (range 63-98%) agreed with the guidelines for clinical decision-making, and 29-97% had a positive opinion about the guidelines for practice organisation. According to practice staff members, the outreach visitor had sufficient knowledge and skills to support them in changing the practice organisation. GPs were less positive about the outreach visitor's knowledge and skills in optimising clinical decision-making; however 78% believed that the outreach visitor contributed to effecting change in their clinical decision-making. The total costs of the intervention per practice were Euro 4317. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation demonstrated that the intervention was usually carried out as planned and achieved a high satisfaction rating from the participating practice members.
Authors: Margot C W Joosen; Karlijn M van Beurden; Berend Terluin; Jaap van Weeghel; Evelien P M Brouwers; Jac J L van der Klink Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Lisa McDermott; Lucy Yardley; Paul Little; Tjeerd van Staa; Alex Dregan; Gerard McCann; Mark Ashworth; Martin Gulliford Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 2.655