Trial reportQuality in health care : QHC1999
Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: acceptance and feasibility.
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 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of a team-based continuous quality improvement intervention on the management of primary care: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006Trial
- Building managed primary care practice networks to deliver better clinical care: a qualitative semi-structured interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Feasibility of peer assessment and clinical audit to self-regulate the quality of physiotherapy services: a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Does a quality management system improve quality in primary care practices in Switzerland? A longitudinal study.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Harnessing innovative technologies to advance children's mental health: behavioral parent training as an example.Clinical psychology review · 2013Review
- Effectiveness of a quality-improvement program in improving management of primary care practices.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011Article
- High workload and job stress are associated with lower practice performance in general practice: an observational study in 239 general practices in the Netherlands.BMC health services research · 2009Article
- RCGP Quality Team Development programme: an illuminative evaluation.Quality & safety in health care · 2004Article
- Assessing organisational development in primary medical care using a group based assessment: the Maturity Matrix.Quality & safety in health care · 2004Article
- Reactions to the use of evidence-based performance indicators in primary care: a qualitative study.Quality in health care : QHC · 2000Article
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 the feasibility and acceptance of (a) two programmes of assessment of practice management in a practice visit: mutual practice visits and feedback by peers versus visits and feedback by non-physician observers and (2) the practice visit method used in these programmes (the visit instrument to assess practice management and organisation (VIP)--a validated Dutch tool).
designProspective, randomised intervention study with the two programmes, follow up after one year. General practitioners (GPs) were visited after each programme and after the revisits by non-physician observers a year later.
settingGeneral practices in the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994. SUBJECTS: A total of 90 GPs in 68 practices. At follow up after 1 year there were 81 GPs in 62 practices. MAIN MEASURES: Scores (mainly five point scales) for questions on appreciation and acceptance; after the follow up visit a year later, scores for questions on feasibility and practicality of the improved procedure and feedback report.
resultsData of 44 mutual visits by peers were compared with data of 46 visits by non-physician observers. A visit by a non-physician observer was appreciated significantly more. After the practice visit at one year follow up, the participants reported to have appreciated the visit and the feedback report and to prefer feedback of a non-physician observer to that of a peer. Participants' reports on the procedure and the presentation of the feedback provided clues for the improvement of visit procedures.
conclusionsA practice visit and feedback by a non-physician observer is more appreciated than a visit and feedback by a colleague. A practice visit with the VIP by a non-physician observer is a simple, easy, and well accepted method for assessing practice management.
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.