Literature DB >> 34126935

Conditions and barriers for quality improvement work: a qualitative study of how professionals and health centre managers experience audit and feedback practices in Swedish primary care.

Eva Arvidsson1, Sofia Dahlin2, Anders Anell3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High quality primary care is expected to be the basis of many health care systems. Expectations on primary care are rising as societies age and the burden of chronic disease grows. To stimulate adherence to guidelines and quality improvement, audit and feedback to professionals is often used, but the effects vary. Even with carefully designed audit and feedback practices, barriers related to contextual conditions may prevent quality improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to explore how professionals and health centre managers in Swedish primary care experience existing forms of audit and feedback, and conditions and barriers for quality improvement, and to explore views on the future use of clinical performance data for quality improvement.
METHODS: We used an explorative qualitative design. Focus groups were conducted with health centre managers, physicians and other health professionals at seven health centres. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Four different types of audit and feedback that regularly occurred at the health centres were identified. The main part of the audit and feedback was "external", from the regional purchasers and funders, and from the owners of the health centres. This audit and feedback focused on non-clinical measures such as revenues, utilisation of resources, and the volume of production. The participants in our study did not perceive that existing audit and feedback practices contributed to improved quality in general. This, along with lack of time for quality improvement, lack of autonomy and lack of quality improvement initiatives at the system (macro) level, were considered barriers to quality improvement at the health centres.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals and health centre managers did not experience audit and feedback practices and existing conditions in Swedish primary care as supportive of quality improvement work. From a professional perspective, audit and feedback with a focus on clinical measures, as well as autonomy for professionals, are necessary to create motivation and space for quality improvement work. Such initiatives also need to be supported by quality improvement efforts at the system (macro) level, which favour transformation to a primary care based system.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audit & feedback; General practice; Incentive; Primary health care; Quality improvement; Quality indicators; Reimbursement

Year:  2021        PMID: 34126935     DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01462-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Fam Pract        ISSN: 1471-2296            Impact factor:   2.497


  42 in total

1.  Primary care, self-rated health, and reductions in social disparities in health.

Authors:  Leiyu Shi; Barbara Starfield; Robert Politzer; Jerri Regan
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  Contribution of primary care to health systems and health.

Authors:  Barbara Starfield; Leiyu Shi; James Macinko
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  The public-private pendulum--patient choice and equity in Sweden.

Authors:  Anders Anell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Frank Eijkenaar; Martin Emmert; Manfred Scheppach; Oliver Schöffski
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Is primary care essential?

Authors:  B Starfield
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-10-22       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Patient choice, entry, and the quality of primary care: Evidence from Swedish reforms.

Authors:  Jens Dietrichson; Lina Maria Ellegård; Gustav Kjellsson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Pay for performance associated with increased volume of medication reviews but not with less inappropriate use of medications among the elderly - an observational study.

Authors:  H Ödesjö; A Anell; A Boman; J Fastbom; S Franzén; J Thorn; S Björck
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 8.  Equity aspects of the Primary Health Care Choice Reform in Sweden - a scoping review.

Authors:  Bo Burström; Kristina Burström; Gunnar Nilsson; Göran Tomson; Margaret Whitehead; Ulrika Winblad
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2017-01-28

9.  Can pay-for-performance to primary care providers stimulate appropriate use of antibiotics?

Authors:  Lina Maria Ellegård; Jens Dietrichson; Anders Anell
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Short-term effects of a pay-for-performance programme for diabetes in a primary care setting: an observational study.

Authors:  H Ödesjö; A Anell; S Gudbjörnsdottir; J Thorn; S Björck
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 2.581

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Fifteen years with patient choice and free establishment in Swedish primary healthcare: what do we know?

Authors:  Mio Fredriksson; David Isaksson
Journal:  Scand J Public Health       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.199

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.