ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[Consensus on a process of benchmarking in primary care in Barcelona].
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 3 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
3 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
- [An instrument to evaluate primary health care from the population perspective].Atencion primaria · 2007Article
- [Results of a benchmarking exercise for primary care teams in Barcelona, Spain].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo define the strategy, the conceptual framework, the methodology and the indicators that are needed to promote and consolidate the culture of external reference (benchmarking) as a strategy for change in Primary Care teams (PCT).
designCross-sectional, descriptive study.
settingPrimary care services of the Barcelona City Health Region.
methodTwo stages were distinguished. At the first stage, an adviser group was set up. This was divided into 4 focus groups in which the main lines, the conceptual framework, the sizes, the indicators and the methodology for comparing PCTs were agreed. The second stage, that of prioritization, was conducted by means of a questionnaire to opinion-formers. For each of the indicators proposed, they appraised the degree of agreement, the suitability and relevance of indicators, the capacity of PC to modify results and the practicality of the information for composing the indicators.
resultsThe involvement of professionals, their approach to improvement, and the transparency and dissemination of the evaluation were identified as strategic elements of benchmarking dynamics. In line with the basic principles of PC and the health system, 6 dimensions for evaluation were set: accessibility, effectiveness, capacity to resolve problems, longitudinality, cost-efficiency, and results. 43 of the 57 indicators prioritized gained the consensus of over 90% of the consultants.
conclusionsEvaluation as a useful tool for managing PC quality has to generate improvements or changes in PCTs. The involvement of professionals in the design and development of evaluation may help both its acceptance and the implementation of the changes arising from it. The indicators used and the effect of benchmarking policy on the results of PC service delivery require evaluation.
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.