Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators

Establishing clinical governance model in primary health care: A systematic review

Clinical governance is a systematic approach to enhancing the quality of primary health care and ensuring high clinical standards, responsiveness to performance, and continuous improvement in service quality. The objective of the current study was to investigate the global experiences of clinical governance in primary health care. In the present systematic review, relevant articles from different countries were searched in various databases such as MD PubMed from Medline portal, Emerald Springer link, ProQuest, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Consult until April 2019. The searched articles were checked through CASP and PRISMA checklists, and their results were extracted. Of the 17 selected studies, 16 belonged to developed countries, including England (13), Australia, Italy, and New Zealand, and one was from Turkey. The findings were divided into three general categories: (1) principles of effectiveness and risk management, (2) deployment requirements such as structural and organizational needs, resource and communication, and information management, and (3) barriers of clinical governance toward providing primary health care. it is recommended that a suitable framework or model be developed and designed adapted to the local culture and taking into account all effective dimensions for a proper establishment and implementation of clinical governance in primary health care.

Ten-Year Follow-Up of Clinical Governance Implementation in Primary Care: Improving Screening, Diagnosis and Control of Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Current improvement strategies for the control of cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) in Europe are based on quality management policies. With the aim of understanding the effect of interventions delivered by primary healthcare systems, we evaluated the impact of clinical governance on cardiovascular health after ten years of implementation in Catalonia. A cohort study that included 1878 patients was conducted in 19 primary care centres (PCCs). Audits that comprised 13 cardiovascular health indicators were performed and general practitioners received periodic (annual, biannual or monthly) feedback about their clinical practice. We evaluated improvement in screening, diagnosis and control of the main CRFs and the effects of the feedback on cardiovascular risk (CR), incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, comparing baseline data with data at the end of the study (after a 10-year follow-up). The impact of the intervention was assessed globally and with respect to feedback frequency. General improvement was observed in screening, percentage of diagnoses and control of CRFs. At the end of the study, few clinically significant differences in CRFs were observed between groups. However, the reduction in CR was greater in the group receiving high frequency feedback, specifically in relation to smoking and control of diabetes and cholesterol (Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) and High Density Lipoprotein (HDL)). A protective effect of having a cardiovascular event (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.94) or death (HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.88) was observed in patients from centres where general practitioners received high frequency feedback. Additionally, these PCCs presented improved cardiovascular health indicators and lower incidence and mortality by CVD, illustrating the impact of this intervention.

The Role of the Psychosocial Dimension in the Improvement of Quality of Care: A Systematic Review

The aim of our systematic review was to analyse the published literature on the psychosocial dimension of care in family medicine and its relationship with quality of care. We wanted to find out whether there is any evidence on the psychosocial approach in (family) medicine. The recommended bio-psycho-social approach, besides the biomedical model of illness, takes into account several co-influencing psychological, sociological and existential factors. An online search of nine different databases used Boolean operators and the following selection criteria: the paper contained information on the holistic approach, quality indicators, family medicine, patient-centred care and/or the bio-psycho-social model of treatment. We retrieved 743 papers, of which 36 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Including the psychosocial dimension in patient management has been found to be useful in the prevention and treatment of physical and psychiatric illness, resulting in improved social functioning and patient satisfaction, reduced health care disparities, and reduced annual medical care charges. The themes of patient-centred, behavioural or psychosocial medicine were quite well presented in several papers. We could not find any conclusive evidence of the impact of a holistic bio-psycho-social-approach. Weak and variable definitions of psychosocial dimensions, a low number of well-designed intervention studies, and low numbers of included patients limited our conclusions.

Diabetic retinopathy care--an international quality comparison

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to study the quality indicator appropriateness and use it for international quality comparison on diabetic retinopathy (DR) patient care process in one American and one Dutch eye hospital.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A 17-item DR quality indicator set was composed based on a literature review and systematically applied in two hospitals. Qualitative analysis entailed document study and 12 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with ophthalmologists, managers, and board members of the two hospitals.

FINDINGS

While the medical-clinical approach to DR treatment in both hospitals was similar, differences were found in quality of care perception and operationalization. Neither hospital systematically used outcome indicators for DR care. On the process level, the authors found larger differences. Similarities and differences were found in the structure of both hospitals. The hospitals' particular contexts influenced the interpretation and use of quality indicators.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although quality indicators and quality comparison between hospitals are increasingly used in international settings, important local differences influence their application. Context should be taken into account. Since that context is locally bound and directly linked to hospital setting, caution should be used interpreting the results of quality comparison studies.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

International quality comparison is increasingly suggested as a useful way to improve healthcare. Little is known, however, about the appropriateness and use of quality indicators in local hospital care practices.

Method for developing national quality indicators based on manual data extraction from medical records

Developing quality indicators (QI) for national purposes (eg, public disclosure, paying-for-performance) highlights the need to find accessible and reliable data sources for collecting standardised data. The most accurate and reliable data source for collecting clinical and organisational information still remains the medical record. Data collection from electronic medical records (EMR) would be far less burdensome than from paper medical records (PMR). However, the development of EMRs is costly and has suffered from low rates of adoption and barriers of usability even in developed countries. Currently, methods for producing national QIs based on the medical record rely on manual extraction from PMRs.

We propose and illustrate such a method. These QIs display feasibility, reliability and discriminative power, and can be used to compare hospitals. They have been implemented nationwide in France since 2006. The method used to develop these QIs could be adapted for use in large-scale programmes of hospital regulation in other, including developing, countries.

Facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental health care: Systematic review

OBJECTIVE To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing quality measurement in primary mental healthcare as part of a large Canadian study (Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement) to identify and select key performances measures for quality improvement in primary mental health care.DATA SOURCES CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched, using various terms that represented the main concepts, for articles published in English between 1996 and 2005.STUDY SELECTION In consultation with a health sciences research librarian, the initial list of identified references was reduced to 702 abstracts, which were assessed for relevance by 2 coders using predetermined selection criteria. Following a consensus process, 34 articles were selected for inclusion in the analysis. An additional 106 citations were identified in the references of these articles, 14 of which were deemed relevant to this study, for a total of 57 empirical articles identified for review. Most articles described implementation of health care innovations and clinical practice guidelines, 5 focused on quality indicators, and 1 examined mental health indicators.SYNTHESIS Content analysis of the 57 articles identified 7 common categories of facilitators and barriers for implementing innovations, guidelines, and quality indicators: indicator characteristics, promotional strategies,implementation strategies, resources, individual-level factors, organizational-level factors, and external factors.Implementation studies in which these factors were addressed were more likely to achieve successful outcomes.CONCLUSION The overlap in facilitators and barriers across implementation of mental health indicators, healthcare innovations, and practice guidelines is not surprising, as they are often related. The overlap strengthens the findings of the limited number of studies of quality indicators. The Continuous Enhancement of Quality Measurement process for identification and selection of indicators has attended to some of these issues by using a rigorous scientific approach and by engaging a range of stakeholders in selecting and prioritizing the indicators.

A systematic literature review: prescribing indicators related to type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular risk management

PURPOSE

Valid prescribing indicators (PI) are needed for reliable assessment of prescribing quality. The purpose of this study is to describe the validity of existing PI for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular risk management.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for studies describing the development and assessment of relevant PIs between January 1990 and January 2009. We grouped identified PI as drug- or disease-oriented, and according to the aspects of prescribing addressed and the additional clinical information included. We reviewed the clinimetric characteristics of the different types of PI.

RESULTS

We identified 59 documents describing the clinimetrics of 16 types of PI covering relevant prescribing aspects, including first-choice treatment, safety issues, dosing, costs, sufficient and timely treatment. We identified three types of drug-oriented, and five types of disease-oriented PI with proven face and content validity as well as operational feasibility in different settings. PI focusing on treatment modifications were the only indicators that showed concurrent validity. Several solutions were proposed for dealing with case-mix and sample size problems, but their actual effect on PI scores was insufficiently assessed. Predictive validity of individual PI is not yet known.

CONCLUSION

We identified a range of existing PI that are valid for internal quality assessment as they are evidence-based, accepted by professionals, and reliable. For external use, problems of patient case-mix and sample size per PI should be better addressed. Further research is needed for selecting indicators that predict clinical outcomes.

Systems for care of hypertension in the United States

Control of hypertension in recent clinical trials varies from 48% to 65%. However, in community care of hypertension in the United States, estimates of control of hypertension are far lower. The United States has no single system of care; however, several care systems can be identified for comparison, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, managed care organizations, and the Indian Health Service. This review compares control of hypertension in certain centers in these systems with that achieved in clinical trials and in the community at large. Certain components of care systems are assessed for their contribution to the control of hypertension. The author concludes that for community control of hypertension to approach that achieved in clinical trials, the use of physician extenders, together with reduced or minimal cost of medication, improved education of providers with feedback, and computerization of management systems will be needed. In addition, specific interventions targeted to medically underserved groups will be required.

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.

[Results of a benchmarking exercise for primary care teams in Barcelona, Spain]

OBJECTIVE

To identify primary care teams (PCT) with the best overall performance and compare these with other PCT with benchmarking methods.

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional study of a set of indictors for the year 2002.

SETTING

City of Barcelona (northeastern Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen seven PCT with more than 2 years' experience, and 771,811 inhabitants in the catchment area.

MAIN MEASURES

Indicators were chosen from among those proposed by an advisory group, depending on feasibility of obtaining information. A total of 17 indicators in 4 dimensions were studied: accessibility, clinical effectiveness, case management capacity, and cost-efficiency. Each PCT was scored for each indicator based on the percentile group in the distribution of scores, and for each dimension based on the mean score for all indicators in a given dimension. Overall score for PCT performance was calculated as the weighted sum of the scores for each dimension. As descriptive variables we analyzed time operating under the revised administrative system, patient visits per population served, the population's economic capacity and age of the population. RESULTS. Nine PCT were identified as the benchmark group. Teams in this group had been operating under the revised administrative system for significantly longer than other PCT. In comparison to other PCT, the benchmark group obtained higher scores on all four dimensions, better results on 14 separate indicators, the same results for 1 indicator, and worse results for 2 indicators. CONCLUSIONS. Benchmarking made it possible to identify PCT with the best performance, and to identify areas in need of improvement. This approach is a potentially useful tool for self-evaluation and for stimulating a dynamic for improvement in primary care providers.

Physician, organisational and patient characteristics explaining the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure treatment: a multilevel study

OBJECTIVE

Heart failure treatment in general practice is not concordant with guideline recommendations. Insight into the key determinants at different levels is needed in order to improve care. The aim was to assess the influence of physician, organisational and patient characteristics on the treatment of chronic heart failure with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in primary care.

METHODS

Physician and organisational data were collected by means of a questionnaire. Patient and treatment data were extracted from electronic medical records. Multilevel analysis was used to assess the effect of physician, organisational and patient factors on the treatment with ACE inhibitors in terms of prescription rate and dosage.

RESULTS

Data from 735 randomly selected heart failure patients were extracted from the medical records of 95 general practitioners (GPs). Patients who visited a cardiologist or an outpatient heart failure clinic were more likely to receive an ACE inhibitor. In addition, relatively young patients, male patients and patients already using a diuretic were more likely to receive an ACE inhibitor. Furthermore, male patients and patients with concomitant hypertension were more likely to receive a higher dose of ACE inhibitor. GP characteristics did not determine whether CHF patients received ACE inhibitor treatment.

CONCLUSION

The differences in ACE inhibitor prescribing seem to be linked more to patient than physician characteristics. Interventions to improve the quality of care should therefore focus on the treatment of specific patient groups. Specialised care, particularly through outpatient clinics, could lead to improvement in the use of ACE inhibitors.

Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review measures of data quality in electronic patient records (EPRs) in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of English language publications, 1980-2001.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic searches of medical databases, specialist medical informatics databases, conference proceedings, and institutional contacts.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies selected according to a predefined framework for categorising review papers.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reference standards and measurements used to judge quality.

RESULTS

Bibliographic searches identified 4589 publications. After primary exclusions 174 articles were classified, 52 of which met the inclusion criteria for review. Selected studies were primarily descriptive surveys. Variability in methods prevented meta-analysis of results. Forty eight publications were concerned with diagnostic data, 37 studies measured data quality, and 15 scoped EPR quality. Reliability of data was assessed with rate comparison. Measures of sensitivity were highly dependent on the element of EPR data being investigated, while the positive predictive value was consistently high, indicating good validity. Prescribing data were generally of better quality than diagnostic or lifestyle data.

CONCLUSION

The lack of standardised methods for assessment of quality of data in electronic patient records makes it difficult to compare results between studies. Studies should present data quality measures with clear numerators, denominators, and confidence intervals. Ambiguous terms such as "accuracy" should be avoided unless precisely defined.

The role of performance indicators in changing the autonomy of the general practice profession in the UK

Performance indicators (PIs) are widely used across the UK public sector, but they have only recently been applied to clinical care. In doing so, they challenge a previously guarded aspect of clinical autonomy-the assessment of work performance. This "challenge" is specific to a primary care setting and in the general practice profession. This paper reviews the qualitative findings from an empirical study within one English primary care group on the response to a set of clinical PIs relating to general practitioners (GPs) in terms of the effect upon their clinical autonomy. Prior to interviews with GPs, primary care teams received feedback on their clinical performance as judged by indicators. Five themes were crucial in understanding GPs responses: the credibility of PIs, the growing need to demonstrate competence, perceptions of autonomy, the ulterior purpose of PIs, and the identity of the assessor of their performance. PIs are playing a key role in changing the locus of performance assessment along two dimensions: location and expertise. As the locus helps to determine the nature of clinical autonomy, it is likely to have implications for the nature of the general practice profession.

Does feedback improve the quality of computerized medical records in primary care?

OBJECTIVE

The MediPlus database collects anonymized information from generalpractice computer systems in the United Kingdom, for research purposes. Data quality markers are collated and fed back to the participating general practitioners. The authors examined whether this feedback had a significant effect on data quality.

METHODS

The data quality markers used since 1992 were examined. The authors determined whether the feedback of "useful" data quality markers led to a statistically significant improvement in these markers. Environmental influences on data quality from outside the scheme were controlled for by examination of the data quality scores of new entrants.

RESULTS

Three quality markers improved significantly over the period of the study. These were the use of highly specific "lower-level" Read Codes (p=0.004) and the linkage of repeat prescriptions (p=0.03) and acute prescriptions (p=0.04) to diagnosis. Clinicians who fall below the target level for linkage of repeat prescriptions to diagnosis receive more detailed feedback; the effect of this was also statistically significant (p<0.01.)

CONCLUSIONS

The feedback of four of the ten markers had a significant effect on data quality. The effect of more detailed feedback appears to have had a greater effect. The lessons learned from this approach may help improve the quality of electronic medical records in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

Reactions to the use of evidence-based performance indicators in primary care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate reactions to the use of evidence-based cardiovascular and stroke performance indicators within one primary care group.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Fifteen practices from a primary care group in southern England.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty two primary health care professionals including 29 general practitioners, 11 practice managers, and 12 practice nurses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' perceptions towards and actions made in response to these indicators. The barriers and facilitators in using these indicators to change practice.

RESULTS

Barriers to the use of the indicators were their data quality and their technical specifications, including definitions of diseases such as heart failure and the threshold for interventions such as blood pressure control. Nevertheless, the indicators were sufficiently credible to prompt most of those in primary care teams to reflect on some aspect of their performance. The most common response was to improve data quality through increased or improved accuracy of recording. There was a lack of a coordinated team approach to decision making. Primary care teams placed little importance on the potential for performance indicators to identify and address inequalities in services between practices. The most common barrier to change was a lack of time and resources to act upon indicators.

CONCLUSION

For the effective implementation of national performance indicators there are many barriers to overcome at individual, practice, and primary care group levels. Additional training and resources are required for improvements in data quality and collection, further education of all members of primary care teams, and measures to foster organisational development within practices. Unless these barriers are addressed, performance indicators could initially increase apparent variation between practices.