Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25452539›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014

Primary care quality indicators for children: measuring quality in UK general practice.

Peter J Gill, Braden O'Neill, Peter Rose, David Mant, Anthony Harnden

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Primary care of mothers and infants by the same or different physicians: a population-based cohort study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Child health care in general practice: priorities for education and practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
  14. Child health indicators: from theoretical frameworks to practical reality?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter J GillThe Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Braden O'NeillCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Peter RoseNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David MantNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anthony HarndenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChild health care is an important part of the UK general practice workload; in 2009 children aged <15 years accounted for 10.9% of consultations. However, only 1.2% of the UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance incentive points relate specifically to children.

aimTo improve the quality of care provided for children and adolescents by defining a set of quality indicators that reflect evidence-based national guidelines and are feasible to audit using routine computerised clinical records. DESIGN AND

settingMulti-step consensus methodology in UK general practice.

methodFour-step development process: selection of priority issues (applying nominal group methodology), systematic review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) clinical guidelines, translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators, and assessment of their validity and implementation feasibility (applying consensus methodology used in selecting QOF indicators).

resultsOf the 296 national guidelines published, 48 were potentially relevant to children in primary care, but only 123 of 1863 recommendations (6.6%) met selection criteria for translation into 56 potential quality indicators. A further 13 potential indicators were articulated after review of existing quality indicators and standards. Assessment of the validity and feasibility of implementation of these 69 candidate indicators by a clinical expert group identified 35 with median scores 8 on a 9-point Likert scale. However, only seven of the 35 achieved a GRADE rating >1 (were based on more than expert opinion).

conclusionProducing valid primary care quality indicators for children is feasible but difficult. These indicators require piloting before wide adoption but have the potential to raise the standard of primary care for all children.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePediatricsChildChild, PreschoolEvidence-Based MedicineFeasibility StudiesGeneral PracticeHealth PolicyHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareReferral and ConsultationUnited Kingdomclinical guidelinespaediatricsprimary health carequality indicator

Identifiers

PMID25452539
PMCPMC4240147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.