ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[Results of a benchmarking exercise for primary care teams in Barcelona, Spain].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Core indicators evaluation of effectiveness of HIV-AIDS preventive-control programmes carried out by nongovernmental organizations. A mixed method study.BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Properties of a short questionnaire for assessing primary care experiences for children in a population survey.BMC public health · 2011Article
- [Primary care evaluation].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
- [An instrument to evaluate primary health care from the population perspective].Atencion primaria · 2007Article
- [No more ''clicking'' on boxes].Atencion primaria · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify primary care teams (PCT) with the best overall performance and compare these with other PCT with benchmarking methods.
designDescriptive, cross-sectional study of a set of indictors for the year 2002.
settingCity of Barcelona (northeastern Spain).
participantsThirteen seven PCT with more than 2 years' experience, and 771,811 inhabitants in the catchment area. MAIN MEASURES: Indicators were chosen from among those proposed by an advisory group, depending on feasibility of obtaining information. A total of 17 indicators in 4 dimensions were studied: accessibility, clinical effectiveness, case management capacity, and cost-efficiency. Each PCT was scored for each indicator based on the percentile group in the distribution of scores, and for each dimension based on the mean score for all indicators in a given dimension. Overall score for PCT performance was calculated as the weighted sum of the scores for each dimension. As descriptive variables we analyzed time operating under the revised administrative system, patient visits per population served, the population's economic capacity and age of the population. RESULTS. Nine PCT were identified as the benchmark group. Teams in this group had been operating under the revised administrative system for significantly longer than other PCT. In comparison to other PCT, the benchmark group obtained higher scores on all four dimensions, better results on 14 separate indicators, the same results for 1 indicator, and worse results for 2 indicators. CONCLUSIONS. Benchmarking made it possible to identify PCT with the best performance, and to identify areas in need of improvement. This approach is a potentially useful tool for self-evaluation and for stimulating a dynamic for improvement in primary care providers.
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.