ArticleFamily practice2019
A process for developing standards to promote quality in general practice.
Article in Family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of Communes with Quality Accredited Primary Healthcare Centers in Chile.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Training needs and curriculum of continuing medical education among general practitioners in Tibet, China: A cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The Development of a Competency Assessment Standard for General Practitioners in China.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 1991, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' (RACGP) Standards for General Practices (the Standards) have provided a framework for quality care, risk management and best practice in the operation of Australian general practices. The Standards are also linked to incentives for general practice remuneration. These Standards were revised in 2017.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to describe the process undertaken to develop the fifth edition Standards published in 2017 to inform future standards development both nationally and internationally.
methodA modified Delphi process was deployed to develop the fifth edition Standards. Development was directed by the RACGP and led by an expert panel of GPs and representatives of stakeholder groups who were assisted and facilitated by a team from RACGP. Each draft was released for stakeholder feedback and tested twice before the final version was submitted for approval by the RACGP board.
resultsFour rounds of consultation and two rounds of piloting were carried out over 32 months. The Standards were redrafted after each round. One hundred and fifty-two individuals and 225 stakeholder groups participated in the development of the Standards. Twenty-three new indicators were recommended and grouped into three sections in a new modular structure that was different from the previous edition.
conclusionThe Standards represent the consensus view of national stakeholders on the indicators of quality and safety in Australian general practice and primary 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.