ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2016
Improving quality of care in general practices by self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Non-communicable Disease Guidelines in Primary Health Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Nursing Management Capacity Scale for Poststroke Dysphagia Based on the Donabedian Model.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Correlation analysis between single disease quality management and efficiency indicators of a tertiary hospital in China.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Changes of diamine oxidase and D-lactate in human breast and gynecologic cancers after chemotherapy.Medicine · 2025Observational
- Organizational Expectations Regarding Documentation Practices in Athletic Training.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Quality of Care for Osteoarthritis in General Practice in South Tyrol, Italy: Protocol for Translation, Validation and Assessment of the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator Questionnaire (OA-QI).Methods and protocols · 2023Article
- Effect of Quality Control Circle Activity Nursing Combined with Respiratory Function Exercise Nursing on Patients with Esophageal Cancer.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Expert-based medication reviews to reduce polypharmacy in older patients in primary care: a northern-Italian cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2021Review
- Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: Their origins, spread, effectiveness and lacunae- A scoping review.PloS one · 2018Article
- The quality of COPD care in German general practice-A cross-sectional study.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.