ArticleBJGP open2017
Are formalised implementation activities associated with aspects of quality of care in general practice? A cross-sectional study.
Article in BJGP open, 2017. 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.
- "We don't need no education" - a qualitative study of barriers to continuous medical education among Danish general practitioners.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Associations between degrees of task delegation and adherence to COPD guidelines on spirometry testing in general practice - a national cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a substantial variation in how different general practices manage knowledge implementation, including the degree to which activities are collectively and formally organised. Yet, it is unclear how these differences in implementation activities affect quality of care.
aimTo investigate if there are associations between specific formalised knowledge implementation activities and quality of care in general practices, exemplified by the use of spirometry testing. DESIGN &
settingA nationwide cross-sectional study combining survey and register data in Denmark.
methodAn electronic questionnaire was distributed to GPs, and data on spirometry testing among first-time users of medication against obstructive lung diseases were obtained from national registers. Associations were investigated using multilevel mixed-effect logit models.
resultsGPs from 1114 practices (58%) responded, and 33 788 patients were linked to a responding practice. In partnership practices, the frequency of interdisciplinary and GP meetings affected the quality of care. Interdisciplinary and GP meetings held on a weekly basis were significantly associated with a higher level of quality of care and this was measured by the odds ratio (OR) of patients having spirometry. The development of practice protocols and standard recordings in the electronic medical record (EMR) for a range of disease areas compared with few or no areas at all also impacted the quality of care level provided. The effect of formalised implementation activities was not as evident in single-handed practices as in partnerships.
conclusionThis study provides valuable knowledge for GPs who aim to organise their practice in a way that supports implementation and quality improvement most effectively. Also, results may be useful for managers of implementation strategies and quality improvement initiatives when planning future activities.
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.