ArticleBMC family practice2015
Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process.
Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Approaches of integrating the development of guidelines and quality indicators: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.PLoS medicine · 2020Trial
- What should a learning health system look like?BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Development of a key performance indicator set for perioperative red blood cell transfusion.BJA open · 2025Article
- Developing a quality and safety assessment framework for Iran's military hospitals.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- The characteristics of high-quality health and social care for people on probation: Professional and lived experience perspectives.Probation journal · 2024Article
- Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Systematic development of quality indicators for skin cancer management in primary care: a mixed-methods study protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Developing guideline-based key performance indicators for recurrent miscarriage care: lessons from a multi-stage consensus process with a diverse stakeholder group.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review.Health & justice · 2022Article
- Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Revitalising audit and feedback to improve patient care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Protocol for a mixed methods realist evaluation of regional District Health Board groupings in New Zealand.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Determining Best Practices for Management of Bacteriuria in Spinal Cord Injury: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Influence of patient characteristics on preventive service delivery and general practitioners' preventive performance indicators: A study in patients with hypertension or diabetes mellitus from Hungary.The European journal of general practice · 2018Article
- Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study.BMJ quality & safety · 2018Article
- Identifying positive deviants in healthcare quality and safety: a mixed methods study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2018Article
- Impact of Disease Prevalence Adjustment on Hospitalization Rates for Chronic Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions in Germany.Health services research · 2018Article
- To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care.
methodsWe reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of 'high impact' QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England.
resultsOut of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites - comprising 2-9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection.
conclusionsWe have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care.
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.