Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15737267›Full record

ArticleAtencion primaria2005

[Results of a benchmarking exercise for primary care teams in Barcelona, Spain].

A Plaza Tesías, C Zara Yahni, A Guarga Rojas, J Farrés Quesada

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Primary care evaluation].Atencion primaria · 2009
    Article
  4. Article
  5. [No more ''clicking'' on boxes].Atencion primaria · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A Plaza TesíasConsorci Sanitari de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. aplaza@catsalut.net
C Zara Yahni
A Guarga Rojas
J Farrés Quesada

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BenchmarkingCross-Sectional StudiesPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesSpain

Identifiers

PMID15737267
PMCPMC7684419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.