Stewart Mercer1, John Gillies2, Bridie Fitzpatrick3. 1. Professor of Primary Care and Multimorbidity, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK stewart.mercer@ed.ac.uk. 2. Honorary Professor, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of GP clusters is derived from 'quality circles' in general practice in Europe and Canada. GP clusters commenced across Scotland in 2016 to improve the quality of care of local populations. AIM: To determine GPs' views on clusters, and the robustness of bespoke questions about them. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional national survey of work satisfaction of GPs in Scotland took place, which was conducted in July 2018-October 2018. METHOD: An analysis of bespoke questions on GP clusters was undertaken. The questions were completed by quality leads (QLs) and all other GPs in a nationally representative sample of GPs. RESULTS: In total, 2456 responses were received from 4371 GPs (56.4%). QLs reported that clusters were meeting regularly, and were friendly and well organised but not always productive. Support for cluster activity (data, health intelligence, analysis, quality improvement methods, advice, leadership, and evaluation) was suboptimal. Factor analysis identified two separate constructs (cluster meetings [CMs] and cluster support [CS]), which were minimally influenced (<2%) by GP and practice characteristics. Non-QLs (75% of all GPs) were generally satisfied with the two-way communication with the cluster QLs, but the great majority (>70%) reported no positive changes in various aspects of quality improvement. Factor analysis of these items indicated two constructs (cluster knowledge and engagement [CKE] and cluster quality improvement [CQI]), which were minimally affected by GP and practice characteristics. CONCLUSION: GP clusters are 'up and running' in Scotland but are at an early stage in terms of perceived impact and appear to be in need of more support in order to improve quality of care. The bespoke questions developed on clusters have robust construct validity, suitable for future surveys.
BACKGROUND: The concept of GP clusters is derived from 'quality circles' in general practice in Europe and Canada. GP clusters commenced across Scotland in 2016 to improve the quality of care of local populations. AIM: To determine GPs' views on clusters, and the robustness of bespoke questions about them. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional national survey of work satisfaction of GPs in Scotland took place, which was conducted in July 2018-October 2018. METHOD: An analysis of bespoke questions on GP clusters was undertaken. The questions were completed by quality leads (QLs) and all other GPs in a nationally representative sample of GPs. RESULTS: In total, 2456 responses were received from 4371 GPs (56.4%). QLs reported that clusters were meeting regularly, and were friendly and well organised but not always productive. Support for cluster activity (data, health intelligence, analysis, quality improvement methods, advice, leadership, and evaluation) was suboptimal. Factor analysis identified two separate constructs (cluster meetings [CMs] and cluster support [CS]), which were minimally influenced (<2%) by GP and practice characteristics. Non-QLs (75% of all GPs) were generally satisfied with the two-way communication with the cluster QLs, but the great majority (>70%) reported no positive changes in various aspects of quality improvement. Factor analysis of these items indicated two constructs (cluster knowledge and engagement [CKE] and cluster quality improvement [CQI]), which were minimally affected by GP and practice characteristics. CONCLUSION:GP clusters are 'up and running' in Scotland but are at an early stage in terms of perceived impact and appear to be in need of more support in order to improve quality of care. The bespoke questions developed on clusters have robust construct validity, suitable for future surveys.
Authors: Marian Andrei Stanciu; Rebecca-Jane Law; Paul Myres; Rachel Parsonage; Julia Hiscock; Nefyn Williams; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Health Policy Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Eddie Donaghy; Huayi Huang; David Henderson; Harry Hx Wang; Bruce Guthrie; Andrew Thompson; Stewart W Mercer Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Ellen Stewart; Eddie Donaghy; Bruce Guthrie; David Henderson; Huayi Huang; Martyn Pickersgill; Harry Hx Wang; Stewart Mercer Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Huayi Huang; Emily R Jefferson; Mark Gotink; Carol Sinclair; Stewart W Mercer; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard; Thorbjørn Hougaard Mikkelsen; Maria Bundgaard; Marie Henriette Madsen; Morten Bonde Klausen; Mads Toft Kristensen; Pia Kürstein Kjellberg; Jens Søndergaard Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-08-25