Search

Item does not contain fulltext 11 p.

Udgivelsesdato: 2002

BACKGROUND: Various methods are available for implementing change in the clinical behaviour of general practitioners (GPs). Although passive dissemination of information is generally ineffective, other methods can be variably effective. Few studies have investigated the impact of tailored methods. AIM: To determine whether methods tailored to overcome obstacles to change using psychological theories are more effective than dissemination alone in the implementation of guidelines for depression among GPs. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Sixty general practices in England; 30 GPs in the control group, 34 in the intervention group. METHOD: Practitioners identified patients presenting with depression before and after the implementation of guidelines (control group n = 192 in the first data collection, n = 181 in the second; intervention group n = 210 in the first data collection and n = 197 in the second). The main outcome measures were: record of adherence to guideline recommendations in clinical records; proportion of patients with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score less than 11 at 16 weeks after diagnosis. RESULTS: In comparison with the control group, in the group of GPs receiving tailored implementation, there were increases in the proportions of patients assessed for suicide risk. In the intervention group, the proportion of patients with BDI scores of less than 11 at 16 weeks increased. CONCLUSION: Obstacles to implementation can be identified and strategies tailored to address them. The findings indicate a new approach for research to understand and develop methods of implementation.

Background. Patients’ evaluations can be used to improve health care and compare general practice in different health systems. Aim. To identify aspects of general practice that are generally evaluated positively by patients and to compare opinions of patients in different European countries on actual care provision. Method. An internationally-validated questionnaire was distributed to and completed by patients in 10 European countries. A stratified sample of 36 practices per country, with at least 1080 patients per country, was included. A set of 23 validated questions on evaluations of different aspects of care was used, as well as questions on age, sex, overall health status, and frequency of visiting the GP. Results. The patient sample included 17 391 patients in 10 different countries; the average response rate was 79% (range = 67% to 89%). In general, patients visiting their general practitioner (GP) were very positive about the care provided. For most of the 23 selected aspects of care more than 80% viewed care as good or excellent; in particular, keeping records confidential, GP listening to patients, time during consultations, and quick services in case of urgent problems were evaluated positively. Patients were relatively negative about organisational aspects of care. The evaluations in different countries were largely similar, with some interesting differences; for instance, service and organisational aspects were evaluated more positively in fee-for-service health systems. Conclusions. Patients in Europe are positive about general practice but improvements in practice management in some countries are requested. More research is needed to study the complex field of differences in expectations and evaluations between countries with different health systems.

BACKGROUND: Since 1991, all general practices have been encouraged to undertake clinical audit. Audit groups report that participation is high, and some local surveys have been undertaken, but no detailed national survey has been reported. AIM: To determine audit activities in general practices and the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the future of clinical audit in primary care. METHOD: A questionnaire on audit activities was sent to 707 practices from 18 medical audit advisory group areas. The audit groups had been ranked by annual funding from 1992 to 1995. Six groups were selected at random from the top, middle, and lowest thirds of this rank order. RESULTS: A total of 428 (60.5%) usable responses were received. Overall, 346 (85%) responders reported 125.7 audits from the previous year with a median of three audits per practice. There was no correlation between the number of audits reported and the funding per GP for the medical audit advisory group. Of 997 audits described in detail, changes were reported as 'not needed' in 220 (22%), 'not made' in 142 (14%), 'made' in 439 (44%), and 'made and remeasured' in 196 (20%). Thus, 635 (64%) audits were reported to have led to changes. Some 853 (81%) of the topics identified were on clinical care. Responders made 242 (42%) positive comments on the future of clinical audit in primary care, and 152 (26%) negative views were recorded. CONCLUSION: The level of audit activity in general practice is reasonably high, and most of the audits result in change. The number of audits per practice seems to be independent of the level of funding that the medical audit advisory group has received. Although there is room for improvement in the levels of effective audit activity in general practice, continued support by the professionally led audit groups could enable all practices to undertake effective audit that leads to improvement in patient care.