Search

The objective was to assess the changes in quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction of chronically ill patients in general practices in Salzburg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) after implementation of a combined intervention addressing quality of care of general practitioners (GPs). Furthermore, the correlation between QoL/patient satisfaction and quality of care provided by the GPs (measured by a quality score based on quality indicators [QIs]) was investigated. The non‐controlled pre–post study involved GPs and patients with chronic conditions. The intervention consisted of self‐audit, benchmarking and quality circles. QIs were extracted in the participating practices in 2012 (preintervention) and 2014 (postintervention). Before and after the intervention, a patient survey was conducted including EQ‐5D (measuring health‐related QoL), a patient participation scale and parts of the European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice questionnaire (measuring patient satisfaction). Mann–Whitney U‐tests, chi‐square tests and Spearman's rank correlation were applied for statistical analysis. Fifty‐six GPs participated in the study. 1,710 patients returned the questionnaire in 2012, and 1,374 in 2014. Mean EQ‐5D index (QoL) was similar in Salzburg and South Tyrol in both years: 2012 Salzburg 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.87), South Tyrol 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.86); 2014 Salzburg 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.86), South Tyrol 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.86). Patient satisfaction was higher in Salzburg than in South Tyrol at baseline (EUROPEP: mean percentage of best response 61.5% vs. 49.1%, p < 0.000) and also at follow‐up (61.9% vs. 49.2%; p < 0.000). No significant correlation between quality score and QoL/patient satisfaction was detected. Thus, the impact of the intervention was not significant within the intermediate time periods analysed in the study. Improvements in quality of care do not necessarily also improve patient‐relevant outcomes, which are probably more associated with other factors than with medical quality (e.g. availability of the GP, waiting times and communication‐related issues). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic strategies promoting quality of care in general practice are yet under-represented in several European countries.Objective: This interventional study assessed whether a combined intervention (self-audit, benchmarking, quality circles) improved quality of care in Salzburg, Austria and South Tyrol, Italy. The present publication reports the Italian results.Methods: We developed quality indicators for general practice in a consensus process based on pre-existing quality programmes. The indicators addressed diagnosis and treatment regarding eight common chronic conditions. A quality score comprising 91 indicators was calculated (0-5 points per indicator depending on fulfilment, maximum 455 points). We collected anonymous data from the electronic health records of the participating physicians in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for pre-post analysis.Results: Thirty-six GPs participated in the study. The median quality score increased significantly from 177.0 points at baseline to 272.0 points at the second follow-up (P = 0.000). Improvements concerned process and intermediate outcome indicators particularly between baseline and the first follow-up.Conclusion: Performance was relatively low at baseline and improved considerably, mainly in the first study period. The intervention investigated in this study can serve as a model for future quality programmes. A customized electronic health record for the implementation of this intervention as well as standardized and consistent documentation by GPs is a prerequisite. Use of a limited set of quality indicators (QIs) and regular QI modification is probably advisable to increase the benefits. Long-term prospective studies should investigate the impact of QI-based interventions on end-result outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]