The development of a routine NHS data-based index of performance in general practice (NHSPPI)

Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner-Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients

BACKGROUND

Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.

DESIGN

We constructed multi-level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.

RESULTS

In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient-level and only a few practice-level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health-care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients' perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient-reported measures as an indicator of health-care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.

Patient-level and practice-level factors associated with consultation duration: a cross-sectional analysis of over one million consultations in English primary care

OBJECTIVES

Consultation duration has previously been shown to be associated with patient, practitioner and practice characteristics. However, previous studies were conducted outside the UK, considered only small numbers of general practitioner (GP) consultations or focused primarily on practitioner-level characteristics. We aimed to determine the patient-level and practice-level factors associated with duration of GP and nurse consultations in UK primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional data were obtained from English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to data on patient deprivation and practice staffing, rurality and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) achievement.

PARTICIPANTS

218 304 patients, from 316 English general practices, consulting from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

ANALYSIS

Multilevel mixed-effects models described the association between consultation duration and patient-level and practice-level factors (patient age, gender, smoking status, ethnic group, deprivation and practice rurality, number of full-time equivalent GPs/nurses, list size, consultation rate, quintile of overall QOF achievement and training status).

RESULTS

Mean duration of face-to-face GP consultations was 9.24 min and 5.32 min for telephone consultations. Nurse face-to-face and telephone consultations lasted 9.70 and 5.73 min on average, respectively. Longer GP consultation duration was associated with female patient gender, practice training status and older patient age. Shorter duration was associated with higher deprivation and consultation rate. Longer nurse consultation duration was associated with male patient gender, older patient age and ever smoking; and shorter duration with higher consultation rate. Observed differences in duration were small (eg, GP consultations with female patients compared with male patients were 8 s longer on average).

CONCLUSIONS

Small observed differences in consultation duration indicate that patients are treated similarly regardless of background. Increased consultation duration may be beneficial for older or comorbid patients, but the benefits and costs of increased consultation duration require further study.

In retrospect--a reflection on a 50-year research journey

This essay is a personal review of a research journey extending over 50 years during which time the understanding of medical practice has changed out of all recognition and the quality and standing of the discipline of general practice has improved substantially. Three main bodies of work are reviewed and set against the reasons why they were undertaken. The first, on the pathology of the appendix and the management of possible appendicitis, was carried out almost entirely in the hospital setting. The second, about the prescribing of antibiotics for respiratory illnesses, and the third, about the determinants of good consulting practice, were carried out in general practice. The essay concludes with a reflection on the relevance of the work to some contemporary academic and health service issues. Although the work was carried out in the UK in the context of its National Health Service (NHS), the conclusions are widely generalizable and have contributed to health service and academic developments in many other countries.

Preferences, predictions and patient enablement: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

The widely used patient enablement instrument (PEI) is sometimes contrasted against measures of patient satisfaction as being a more objective measure of consultation quality, in that it is less likely to be positively influenced by fulfilling pre-existing expectations for specific consultation outcomes (such as prescriptions or referrals). However the relationship between expectation and enablement is underexplored, as is the relationship between 'expectation' understood as a patient preference for outcome, and patient prediction of outcome. The aims of the study are to 1) assess the feasibility of measuring the relationship between expectation fulfilment and patient enablement, and 2) measure the difference (if any) between expectation understood as preference, and expectation understood as prediction.

METHODS

A questionnaire study was carried out on 67 patients attending three General Practices in the Australian Capital Territory. Patient preferences and predictions for a range of possible outcomes were recorded prior to the consultation. PEI and the actual outcomes of the consultation were recorded at the conclusion of the consultation. Data analysis compared expectation fulfilment as concordance between the preferred, predicted, and actual outcomes, with the PEI as a dependant variable.

RESULTS

No statistically significant relationship was found between either preference-outcome concordance and PEI, or prediction-outcome concordance. Statistically insignificant trends in both cases ran counter to expectations; i.e. with PEI (weakly) positively correlated with greater discordance. The degree of concordance between preferred outcomes and predicted outcomes was less than the concordance between either preferred outcomes and actual outcomes, or predicted outcomes and actual outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between expectation fulfilment and enablement remains uncertain, whether expectation is measured as stated preferences for specific outcomes, or the predictions made regarding receiving such outcomes. However the lack of agreement between these two senses of 'patient expectation' suggests that explicitly demarcating these concepts during study design is strongly advisable.

Development of the Chinese primary care assessment tool: data quality and measurement properties

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Primary Care Assessment Tool to assess the perceptions of the quality of primary care among patients in China and to examine the psychometric properties of the adapted Primary Care Assessment Tool Chinese version (PCAT-C).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey to assess the validity and reliability of PCAT-C using standard psychometric techniques.

SETTING

Outpatient departments of five state-level and provincial-level hospitals and four municipal-level hospitals as well as nine community health centers in Changsha, China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2532 patients visiting primary care providers.

RESULTS

The PCAT-C was acceptable to patients, as evidenced by low proportions of missing data and a full range of possible scores for all items. Two items were eliminated following principal component analysis and reliability testing. The principal component analysis extracted eight multiple-item scales and one single-item scale. Multiple-item scales had reasonable internal consistency and high item-scale correlations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first attempt to construct an instrument for assessing patient reports on the quality of primary care, which is applicable to the Chinese context. Psychometric assessments indicated that the PCAT-C is a useful instrument for assessing the core attributes of primary care in China.

Defining and measuring the patient-centered medical home

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices' internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare. The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care. The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following: Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care. Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value Assessing development of practices' core processes and adaptive reserve. Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources. Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects. Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings. Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained.

RESULTS

212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8).

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

Patients' own assessments of quality of primary care compared with objective records based measures of technical quality of care: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relation between older patients' assessments of the quality of their primary care and measures of good clinical practice on the basis of data from administrative and clinical records.

DESIGN

Cross sectional population based study using the general practice assessment survey.

SETTING

18 general practices in the Basildon primary care trust area, south east England.

PARTICIPANTS

3487 people aged 65 or more.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Correlations between mean practice scores on the general practice assessment survey and three evidence based measures on survey of case records (monitoring for, and control of, hypertension, and vaccination against influenza).

RESULTS

76% of people (3487/4563) responded to the general practice assessment survey. Correlations between patient assessed survey scores for technical quality and the objective records based measures of good clinical practice were 0.22 (95% confidence interval -0.28 to 0.62) for hypertension monitored, 0.30 (-0.19 to 0.67) for hypertension controlled, and -0.05 (-0.50 to 0.43) for influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients' assessments are not a sufficient basis for assessing the technical quality of their primary care. For an overall assessment both patient based and records based measures are required.