Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27599700›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2016

Improving quality of care in general practices by self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles.

Angelika Mahlknecht, Muna E Abuzahra, Giuliano Piccoliori, Nina Enthaler, Adolf Engl, Andreas Sönnichsen

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2016. 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. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Angelika MahlknechtInstitut für Allgemein-, Familien- und Präventivmedizin, Paracelsus Medizinische Universität Salzburg, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. angelika.mahlknecht@pmu.ac.at.
Muna E AbuzahraInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und evidenzbasierte Versorgungsforschung, Medizinische Universität Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2/9, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Giuliano PiccolioriSüdtiroler Akademie für Allgemeinmedizin, Wangergasse 18, 39100, Bolzano, Italy.
Nina EnthalerInstitut für Allgemein-, Familien- und Präventivmedizin, Paracelsus Medizinische Universität Salzburg, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Adolf EnglSüdtiroler Akademie für Allgemeinmedizin, Wangergasse 18, 39100, Bolzano, Italy.
Andreas SönnichsenInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Str. 50, 58448, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guideline adherence of general practitioners (GP) regarding treatment of chronic conditions shows room for improvement. Thus, concepts have to be designed to promote quality of care. The aim of the interventional study "Improvement of Quality by Benchmarking" was to assess whether quality can be improved by self-auditing, benchmarking and quality circles in Salzburg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). In this publication we present the Austrian results. Quality indicators were developed in a consensus process for eight chronic diseases based on pre-existing quality management systems. A quality score consisting of 35 indicators was calculated (0-5 points per indicator depending on fulfilment, maximum 175 points). Data were extracted from the electronic health records of participating practices in 2012, 2013 and 2014. A statistical pre-post analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A total of 20 GPs participated in the project. The mean quality score increased from 62.0 at baseline to 84.0 at the second follow-up (p = 0.003). Regarding the individual quality indicators, strong improvements were achieved between baseline and first follow-up, especially in process indicators concerning documentation. Between the first and second follow-up, quality remained in most cases at the same level. The validity of results is limited because of structural and technical problems. Due to the uncontrolled pre-post design we cannot exclude external influences on the results. Nevertheless, the intervention was able to improve measured quality of care. Barriers were detected that should be considered in a possible implementation of quality control programs.

Indexed as

AdultAustriaBenchmarkingChronic DiseaseElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansItalyMaleManagement Quality CirclesMedical AuditMiddle AgedQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareChronic diseasesGeneral practiceHealthcare qualityQuality circlesQuality indicators

Identifiers

PMID27599700
PMCPMC5052301

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.