ArticleQuality & safety in health care2004
RCGP Quality Team Development programme: an illuminative evaluation.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Can the theoretical domains framework account for the implementation of clinical quality interventions?BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Practice accreditation: the European perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Article
- Primary Medical Care Provider Accreditation (PMCPA): pilot evaluation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010Article
- Implementing change in primary care practices using electronic medical records: a conceptual framework.Implementation science : IS · 2008Article
- Mangin on QOF.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
- Lost in the global sum? Professional and practice development in primary care after the new general practice contract.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing interest in quality initiatives that are locally owned and delivered, team based, multiprofessional, and formative. The Royal College of General Practitioners' Quality Team Development (QTD) programme is one such initiative aimed at developing primary healthcare teams and their services.
aimsTo evaluate QTD from the perspective of participants and assessors.
settingUK primary health care. DESIGN AND
methodTwelve of 14 practices and all four primary care organisations (PCOs) approached agreed to participate. Thirty four semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and analysed using the constant comparative method.
resultsThe QTD programme appears to be highly valued by participating organisations. Practice based respondents perceived it as acceptable and feasible, and reported positive changes in teamwork and patient services. They valued its formative, participative, and multiprofessional nature, especially the peer review element. PCOs saw QTD as a method of delivering on prevailing national policies on clinical quality and modernization agendas as well as promoting interorganizational collaboration. The main concerns raised were the workload, particularly for assessors, and maintaining the quality of the assessments and the programme.
conclusionThis qualitative study suggests positive benefits for participants in the QTD programme. However, such practices are a self-selecting innovative minority. Further research is needed on more typical practices to identify barriers to their participation in QTD or other formative, team based quality improvement programmes.
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.