ArticleJournal of public health research2012
Experimenting clinical pathways in general practice: a focus group investigation with italian general practitioners.
Article in Journal of public health research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process Mining Methodology for Health Process Tracking Using Real-Time Indoor Location Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical governance is considered crucial in primary care. Since 2005, clinical pathways have been experimentally implemented at the Local Health Authority of Monza Brianza (ASLMB), Italy, to develop general practitioners' (GPs) care of patients affected by some chronic diseases. The experimentation was aimed at introducing clinical governance in primary care, increasing GPs' involvement in the care of their patients, and improving both patients' and professionals' satisfaction. In the period 2005-2006, 12% of the 763 employed GPs in the ASLMB were involved in the experiment, while this percentage increased to 15-20% in 2007-2008. DESIGN AND
methodsTwenty-four GPs were purposively sampled, randomly divided into two groups and asked to participate in focus groups (FGs) held in 2008, aimed at evaluating their perception of the experiment. The FGs were audio-recorded, dialogues were typed out and undergone to a thematic analysis, according to the Interpretative Phenomenological Approach.
resultsFOUR MAJOR THEMES EMERGED: i) clinical pathways can result in GPs working in a more efficient and effective fashion; ii) they can assure higher levels of both patient and professional satisfaction, since they sustain a caring approach and strengthen the GPs' role; iii) nevertheless, clinical pathways increase the bureaucratic workload and problems can arise in relationships among GPs and the LHA; iv) the implementation of clinical pathways can be improved, especially by reducing bureaucracy and by assuring their continuity.
conclusionsManagerial aspects should be considered with care in order to experimentally introduce clinical pathways in general practice, and continuity of the experimentation should be guaranteed to improve GPs' adherence and commitment. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: the Authors thank Dr. AP. Cantù and Dr D. Cereda who participated in the two focus groups as observers.
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.