ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004
Are NHS primary care performance indicator scores acceptable as markers of general practitioner quality?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Creation of a synthetic indicator of quality of care as a clinical management standard in primary care.SpringerPlus · 2013Article
- The maldistribution of general practitioners in England and Wales: 1974-2003.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
- Performance indicator scoring.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
- Performance indicator scoring.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2002 the Department of Health published a list of 20 indicators to judge the performance of the 302 primary care organisations (PCOs) in England during 2001-2002. General practitioners (GPs) have expressed doubts about the relevance, applicability and evidence base of these indicators for actual practice.
aimsTo fashion NHS performance indicators to be acceptable and relevant to practicing GPs. DESIGN OF STUDY: A Delphi technique followed by simple mathematical modelling.
methodsWe asked a group of 24 senior GP educators to place the Department of Health performance indicators in rank order as markers of quality in general practice. We found just seven indicators comprised 73% of the markers chosen and all seven were chosen by over three-quarters of the responders. Using a simple 'sign test' system, we then calculated a composite points score for all 302 PCOs.
resultsWe found that there were almost twice as many PCOs at the upper and lower ends of performance and fewer in the middle than we predicted theoretically. The results suggest that pan-PCO or practice factors account for the low performance scores of 16 of 35 PCOs with extremely poor performance and for the high scores of 17 of the 36 PCOs with extremely high performance.
conclusionWe have developed a method that shows how numerous Department of Health performance indicators can be merged into a single composite performance score. We show that this composite performance score is easy to derive, simple to interpret, is acceptable to GPs, and has face validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15113515PMC1266166W2163303561What 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.