ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Quality Management Systems in the Ambulant Sector: An Analytical Comparison of Different Quality Management Systems.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. 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
backgroundSince 1 January 2004, all physicians, psychotherapists, and medical care centers that are under contract to statutory healthcare in Germany are obliged, according to § 135a Section 2 of the Fifth Social Security Statute Book, to introduce an intra-institutional quality management system.
methodsA total of 24 medical practices were chosen through random sampling. In total, there were 12 family physicians and specialist practices each and eight practices each per quality management system. The analysis was carried out with the help of three specially developed questionnaires (physician, employee, and patient). A total of 26 quality categories with different questions were available in the three survey groups (physicians, employees, and patients). The Kruskal⁻Wallis test checked the extent to which the different scores between the quality management systems were significant and effective for specialists or family physicians.
results"Quality and Development in Practices (QEP)" had the highest average score. Due to a specific family practitioner specialism, "Quality management in Saxony medical practices (QisA)" followed with good average scores. The individual quality categories in the quality management systems, such as the "range of services" or "allocation of appointments", received the highest average scores among the specialists. In contrast, categories such as "telephone enquiries" and "external cooperation and communication" received the highest average scores among the family physicians.
conclusionDifferences in the evaluation of quality management systems and medical groups (specialists/family physicians) were found in the study. The reasons for these differences could be found in the quality categories.
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.