Trial reportQuality in health care : QHC1999
Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: mutual visits and feedback by peers compared with visits and feedback by non-physician observers.
Trial report in Quality in health care : QHC, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Pooled it
- The Effect of a Change Agent on Use of Evidence-Based Mental Health Practices.Administration and policy in mental health · 2016Trial
- Prescription peer academic detailing to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Trial
- Academic detailing and adherence to guidelines for Group B streptococci prenatal screening: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2013Trial
- Role enactment of facilitation in primary care - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Developing the mental health workforce: review and application of training approaches from multiple disciplines.Administration and policy in mental health · 2011Review
- Improving identification and management of partner violence: examining the process of academic detailing: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2011Article
- Performance feedback: an exploratory study to examine the acceptability and impact for interdisciplinary primary care teams.BMC family practice · 2011Article
- Experience as a doctor in the developing world: does it benefit the clinical and organisational performance in general practice?BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Do panels vary when assessing intrapartum adverse events? The reproducibility of assessments by hospital risk management groups.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Article
- What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2005Article
- RCGP Quality Team Development programme: an illuminative evaluation.Quality & safety in health care · 2004Article
- Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care.Quality & safety in health care · 2002Article
- Reactions to the use of evidence-based performance indicators in primary care: a qualitative study.Quality in health care : QHC · 2000Article
- Does feedback improve the quality of computerized medical records in primary care?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the effects of two programmes of assessment of practice management in a practice visit: mutual visits and feedback by peers compared with visits and feedback by non-physician observers.
designProspective, randomised intervention study, with follow up after one year.
settingGeneral practices in the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994. SUBJECTS: A total of 90 general practitioners (GPs) in 68 practices; follow up after one year comprised 81 GPs in 62 practices. MAIN MEASURES: Scores on indicators and dimensions of practice management in the visit instrument to assess practice management and organisation (a validated Dutch method to assess practice management in a practice visit). Change was defined as the difference in score between the first visit and the visit after one year on 208 indicators and on 33 dimensions of practice management.
resultsData of 44 mutual visits by peers were compared with data of 46 visits by non-physician observers. After a year both programmes showed improvements on many aspects of practice management, but different aspects changed in each of the two programmes. After mutual practice visits, GPs scored significantly higher on content of the doctor's bag, on collaboration with colleagues, on collaboration with other care providers, and on accessibility of patient information than after a visit by a non-physician observer. The visits by non-physician observers resulted in a higher score on extent of use of records and on assessment on outcome and year report.
conclusionChange after mutual practice visits and feedback by peers is more marked than after a visit and feedback by a non-physician observer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.