ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2014
General Practice Locum Improvement Tool.
Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An improvement culture is required in the NHS. Staff members who move from one place of work to another are often best placed to see alternative methods of working that at times are more efficient - locum general practitioners (GPs) tend to be in this category. A tool was developed specifically to obtain quality improvement suggestions to the general practice from the locum GP and vice versa in a time efficient manner. A pilot study was performed in one general practice in Tayside (Grove Health Centre) in December 2013 to assess if this was possible. During this month a general practice partner provided feedback to the locum GP by completing a drop down tick box survey while reviewing three cases dealt with by the locum. The locum GP was emailed after their session with a one question survey enquiring about improvement suggestions for that practice. Five different locum GPs provided clinical cover during the month studied - of these, one opted out from the study. The other four locums performed their clinical session and completed the survey. Feedback from the practice to locums included specific clinical guidance, suggestions for improving documentation, and ways to optimise referrals; of note, unique feedback was given to each locum and this was generated using this tool. Themes from the locum suggestions to the practice included more physical resources (such as cameras in each room), different ways of handling prescriptions, and a suggestion about identifying complex patients. As a direct result of this pilot a locum box has been implemented in this practice and plans are to rerun this tool periodically. The authors would recommend utilising this tool periodically in other general practices as it has the potential to identify improvement suggestions unique for that particular practice.
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.