Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16257992›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Improvements in quality of clinical care in English general practice 1998-2003: longitudinal observational study.

Stephen M Campbell, Martin O Roland, Elizabeth Middleton, David Reeves

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed
48.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 192 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Multimorbidity and equity in health.International journal for equity in health · 2013
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Under-provision of medical care for vascular diseases for people with dementia in primary care: a cross-sectional review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Do practicing clinicians agree with expert ratings of neonatal intensive care unit quality measures?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2012
    Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen M CampbellNational Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL. stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk
Martin O Roland
Elizabeth Middleton
David Reeves
University of Manchester · GBNational Computing Centre (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo measure changes in quality of care for three major chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, asthma, and type 2 diabetes) between 1998 and 2003.

designLongitudinal cohort study.

setting42 general practices in six geographical areas of England (Avon, Bury/Rochdale, Enfield, Oldham, Somerset, South Essex).

participantsMedical record data for 2300 patients with diabetes, asthma, or coronary heart disease in 1998, and 1495 patients in 2003.

main outcome measureQuality of care assessed against predefined evidence based review criteria.

resultsBetween 1998 and 2003, quality of care improved markedly in terms of maximum possible scores on the review criteria, from 60.5% to 78.1% for coronary heart disease (change = 17.6, 95% confidence interval 13.9 to 21.4; P < 0.001), 60.1% to 70.3% for asthma (10.2, 4.6 to 15.8; P = 0.001), and 70.4% to 77.7% for diabetes (7.3, 3.5 to 11.1; P = 0.001). Important changes occurred to several indicators potentially related to improved health outcomes. These included improved control of serum cholesterol (to < or = 5 mmol/l) from 17.6% to 61.4% in coronary heart disease and from 21.5% to 52% in diabetes and control of blood pressure to < or = 150/90 in coronary heart disease from 47.3% to 72.2% and to < or = 145/85 in diabetes from 21.8% to 35.8%. A small, non-significant improvement in glycaemic control occurred among diabetic patients (37.9% to 39.7% with HbA1c < 7.4%). Significant improvements also occurred in the recording of exercise capacity and diet and weight advice for patients with coronary heart disease; of smoking advice, peak flow, and symptoms for patients with asthma; and of creatinine, weight, and HbA(1c) for patients with diabetes. Over the five years, more improvement in coronary heart disease care occurred in large practices and practices in affluent areas.

conclusionsSubstantial improvements were seen in quality of care for the three conditions studied between 1998 and 2003, a time of systematic quality improvement initiatives in the NHS. The changes were most marked for coronary heart disease. English general practices could be expected to achieve high clinical quality scores in the initial year of a new contact, which provides financial incentives for high quality care from 2004.

Indexed as

AsthmaCoronary DiseaseDiabetes MellitusEnglandFamily PracticeHumansLongitudinal StudiesQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID16257992
PMCPMC1283276
OpenAlexW2027242528

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.