Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20594431›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010

Primary Medical Care Provider Accreditation (PMCPA): pilot evaluation.

Stephen M Campbell, Umesh Chauhan, Helen Lester

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Practice accreditation: the European perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Article
  10. Quality and Outcomes Framework: time to take stock.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephen M CampbellNational Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester. stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk
Umesh Chauhan
Helen Lester

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile practice-level or team accreditation is not new to primary care in the UK and there are organisational indicators in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) organisational domain, there is no universal system of accreditation of the quality of organisational aspects of care in the UK.

aimTo describe the development, content and piloting of version 1 of the Primary Medical Care Provider Accreditation (PMCPA) scheme, which includes 112 separate criteria across six domains: health inequalities and health promotion; provider management; premises, records, equipment, and medicines management; provider teams; learning organisation; and patient experience/involvement, and to present the results from the pilot service evaluation focusing on the achievement of the 30 core criteria and feedback from practice staff. DESIGN OF STUDY: Observational service evaluation using evidence uploaded onto an extranet system in support of 30 core summative pilot PMCPA accreditation criteria.

settingThirty-six nationally representative practices across England, between June and December 2008.

methodSTUDY POPULATION: interviews with GPs, practice managers, nurses and other relevant staff from the participating practices were conducted, audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed using a thematic approach. For each practice, the number of core criteria that had received either a 'good' or 'satisfactory' rating from a RCGP-trained assessment team, was counted and expressed as a percentage.

resultsThirty-two practices completed the scheme, with nine practices passing 100% of core criteria (range: 27-100%). There were no statistical differences in achievement between practices of different sizes and in different localities. Practice feedback highlighted seven key issues: (1) overall view of PMCPA; (2) the role of accreditation; (3) different motivations for taking part; (4) practice managers dominated the workload associated with implementing the scheme; (5) facilitators for implementation; (6) patient benefit--relevance of PMCPA to quality improvement; (7) recommendations for improving the scheme.

conclusionVersion 1 of PMCPA has been piloted as a primary care accreditation scheme and shown to be relevant to different types of practice. The scheme is undergoing revision in accordance with the findings from the pilot and ongoing consultation.

Indexed as

AccreditationClinical CompetenceEnglandFamily PracticeFeedbackHumansMotivationPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareWorkload

Identifiers

PMID20594431
PMCPMC2894404

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.