ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2021
Implementation of healthcare accreditation in Danish general practice: a questionnaire study exploring general practitioners' perspectives on external support.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accreditation of primary health care centres in the KSA: Lessons from developed and developing countries.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- What GPs do to meet accreditation standards - implementation activities and perceived improvements attributed to general practice accreditation.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Prescribing antibiotics: the use of diagnostic tests in general practice. A register-based study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Guidance for Implementing Video Consultations in Danish General Practice: Rapid Cycle Coproduction Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the use and perceived usefulness of implementation support provided to general practice during an accreditation process and to explore potential variations across clinic characteristics.
designCross-sectional questionnaire study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: All Danish general practice clinics undergoing an accreditation survey from 27 September 2016 to 15 December 2017 (
main outcome measuresUse and perceived usefulness of seven types of implementation support as reported by general practitioners (GPs). Clinic characteristics included practice type, number of GP partners and staff and employment of GP trainees.
resultsThe total response rate was 74% (
conclusionDuring the accreditation processes, each clinic used a broad variety of implementation support. Support tailored to the individual clinic was highly appreciated and should be promoted in future quality interventions in general practice. Discussions with peers were widely used, and it should be investigated further how peer discussions are best facilitated. The study calls for a multifactorial approach to future quality interventions in general practice to target the needs and capacities of the individual clinics.
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.