Ryan Irwin1, Tim Stokes2, Tom Marshall3. 1. 1Primary Care Clinical Sciences,School of Health and Population Sciences,College of Medical and Dental Sciences,University of Birmingham,Edgbaston,Birmingham,UK. 2. 2Elaine Gurr Professor of General Practice,Department of General Practice and Rural Health,University of Otago,Dunedin,New Zealand. 3. 3Professor of Public Health and Primary Care,Primary Care Clinical Sciences,School of Health and Population Sciences,College of Medical and Dental Sciences,University of Birmingham,Edgbaston,Birmingham,UK.
Abstract
AIM: To present an overview of effective interventions for quality improvement in primary care at the practice level utilising existing systematic reviews. BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in primary care involves a range of approaches from the system-level to patient-level improvement. One key setting in which quality improvement needs to occur is at the level of the basic unit of primary care--the individual general practice. Therefore, there is a need for practitioners to have access to an overview of the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions available in this setting. DESIGN: A tertiary evidence synthesis was conducted (a review of systematic reviews). A systematic approach was used to identify and summarise published literature relevant to understanding primary-care quality improvement at the practice level. Quality assessment was via the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for systematic reviews, with data extraction identifying evidence of effect for the examined interventions. SCOPE: Included reviews had to be relevant to quality improvement at the practice level and relevant to the UK primary-care context. Reviews were excluded if describing system-level interventions. OUTCOME MEASURES: A range of measures across care structure, process and outcomes were defined and interpreted across the quality improvement interventions. FINDINGS: Audit and feedback, computerised advice, point-of-care reminders, practice facilitation, educational outreach and processes for patient review and follow-up all demonstrated evidence of a quality improvement effect. Evidence of an improvement effect was higher where baseline performance was low and was particularly demonstrated across process measures and measures related to prescribing. Evidence was not sufficient to suggest that multifaceted approaches were more effective than single interventions. CONCLUSION: Evidence exists for a range of quality improvement interventions at the primary-care practice level. More research is required to determine the use and impact of quality improvement interventions using theoretical frameworks and cost-effectiveness analysis.
AIM: To present an overview of effective interventions for quality improvement in primary care at the practice level utilising existing systematic reviews. BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in primary care involves a range of approaches from the system-level to patient-level improvement. One key setting in which quality improvement needs to occur is at the level of the basic unit of primary care--the individual general practice. Therefore, there is a need for practitioners to have access to an overview of the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions available in this setting. DESIGN: A tertiary evidence synthesis was conducted (a review of systematic reviews). A systematic approach was used to identify and summarise published literature relevant to understanding primary-care quality improvement at the practice level. Quality assessment was via the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for systematic reviews, with data extraction identifying evidence of effect for the examined interventions. SCOPE: Included reviews had to be relevant to quality improvement at the practice level and relevant to the UK primary-care context. Reviews were excluded if describing system-level interventions. OUTCOME MEASURES: A range of measures across care structure, process and outcomes were defined and interpreted across the quality improvement interventions. FINDINGS: Audit and feedback, computerised advice, point-of-care reminders, practice facilitation, educational outreach and processes for patient review and follow-up all demonstrated evidence of a quality improvement effect. Evidence of an improvement effect was higher where baseline performance was low and was particularly demonstrated across process measures and measures related to prescribing. Evidence was not sufficient to suggest that multifaceted approaches were more effective than single interventions. CONCLUSION: Evidence exists for a range of quality improvement interventions at the primary-care practice level. More research is required to determine the use and impact of quality improvement interventions using theoretical frameworks and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Authors: Sarah S Ono; Benjamin F Crabtree; Jennifer R Hemler; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Samuel T Edwards; Larry A Green; Arthur Kaufman; Leif I Solberg; William L Miller; Tanisha Tate Woodson; Shannon M Sweeney; Deborah J Cohen Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Toshihiko Takada; Pauline Heus; Sander van Doorn; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Jan-Willem Weenink; Simone A van Dulmen; Lotty Hooft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Crystal W Cené; Jacqueline R Halladay; Ziya Gizlice; Katrina E Donahue; Doyle M Cummings; Alan Hinderliter; Cassandra Miller; Larry F Johnson; Beverly Garcia; Jim Tillman; Edwin P Little; Marjorie R Rachide; Thomas C Keyserling; Alice Ammerman; Haibo Zhou; Jia-Rong Wu; Darren DeWalt Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: J Trietsch; B van Steenkiste; R Grol; B Winkens; H Ulenkate; J Metsemakers; T van der Weijden Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Wolfgang Munar; Birte Snilstveit; Jennifer Stevenson; Nilakshi Biswas; John Eyers; Gisela Butera; Theresa Baffour; Ligia E Aranda Journal: Gates Open Res Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: Rachel Gold; Arwen Bunce; Stuart Cowburn; James V Davis; Joan C Nelson; Christine A Nelson; Elisabeth Hicks; Deborah J Cohen; Michael A Horberg; Gerardo Melgar; James W Dearing; Janet Seabrook; Ned Mossman; Joanna Bulkley Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Santhanalakshmi Gengiah; Kogieleum Naidoo; Regina Mlobeli; Maureen F Tshabalala; Andrew J Nunn; Nesri Padayatchi; Nonhlanhla Yende-Zuma; Myra Taylor; Pierre M Barker; Marian Loveday Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract Date: 2021-09-30