BACKGROUND: Although good medical records have been associated with good care, there is considerable room for their improvement in general practice. AIM: To improve the quality of general practice medical records at minimal cost. METHOD: A total of 150 randomly sampled general practitioners (GPs) in suburban Brisbane, Australia, were randomized in a controlled trial to receive or not receive an intervention. The intervention consisted of 6 to 12 one-hour monthly meetings when the pairs of GPs assessed samples of each other's medical records using a 12-item instrument. This was developed previously by a process of consensus of general practice teachers. Mean scores of 10 medical records selected at random from before the intervention started and one year later were compared. RESULTS: After the intervention, the increase in the total score (for which the maximum possible was 18) for the intervention GPs (from a baseline of 11.5 to 12.3) was not significantly greater than for the controls (from 11.4 to 11.7). Legibility and being able to determine the doctor's assessment of the consultation were significantly improved. The post-intervention increase of 1.06 (9.3%) of the total scores of the 47% of intervention GPs who complied with the intervention was significantly greater than that for the controls. CONCLUSION: The quality assurance activity improved some components of the quality of GPs' clinical records. However, the improvement was small, and the search for activities for Australian GPs that demonstrate an improvement in the quality of their practice must continue.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although good medical records have been associated with good care, there is considerable room for their improvement in general practice. AIM: To improve the quality of general practice medical records at minimal cost. METHOD: A total of 150 randomly sampled general practitioners (GPs) in suburban Brisbane, Australia, were randomized in a controlled trial to receive or not receive an intervention. The intervention consisted of 6 to 12 one-hour monthly meetings when the pairs of GPs assessed samples of each other's medical records using a 12-item instrument. This was developed previously by a process of consensus of general practice teachers. Mean scores of 10 medical records selected at random from before the intervention started and one year later were compared. RESULTS: After the intervention, the increase in the total score (for which the maximum possible was 18) for the intervention GPs (from a baseline of 11.5 to 12.3) was not significantly greater than for the controls (from 11.4 to 11.7). Legibility and being able to determine the doctor's assessment of the consultation were significantly improved. The post-intervention increase of 1.06 (9.3%) of the total scores of the 47% of intervention GPs who complied with the intervention was significantly greater than that for the controls. CONCLUSION: The quality assurance activity improved some components of the quality of GPs' clinical records. However, the improvement was small, and the search for activities for Australian GPs that demonstrate an improvement in the quality of their practice must continue.
Authors: W Mphatswe; K S Mate; B Bennett; H Ngidi; J Reddy; P M Barker; N Rollins Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 9.408