Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34049868›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2021

Quality improvement in general practice: what do GPs and practice managers think? Results from a nationally representative survey of UK GPs and practice managers.

Jennifer Gosling, Nicholas Mays, Bob Erens, David Reid, Josephine Exley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Quality improvement work in general practice; a Norwegian focus group study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024
    Article
  4. TheThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Collaborative improvement in Scottish GP clusters after the Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jennifer GoslingHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK jennifer.gosling@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4141-0519
Nicholas MaysHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Bob ErensHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
David ReidFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Josephine ExleyHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper presents the results of the first UK-wide survey of National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers (PMs) designed to explore the service improvement activities being undertaken in practices, and the factors that facilitated or obstructed that work. The research was prompted by growing policy and professional interest in the quality of general practice and its improvement. The analysis compares GP and PM involvement in, and experience of, quality improvement activities.

methodsThis was a mixed-method study comprising 26 semistructured interviews, a focus group and two surveys. The qualitative data supported the design of the surveys, which were sent to all 46 238 GPs on the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) database and the PM at every practice across the UK (n=9153) in July 2017.

resultsResponses from 2377 GPs and 1424 PMs were received and were broadly representative of each group. Ninety-nine per cent reported having planned or undertaken improvement activities in the previous 12 months. The most frequent related to prescribing and access. Key facilitators of improvement included 'good clinical leadership'. The two main barriers were 'too many demands from external stakeholders' and a lack of protected time. Audit and significant event audit were the most common improvement tools used, but respondents were interested in training on other quality improvement tools.

conclusionGPs and PMs are interested in improving service quality. As such, the new quality improvement domain in the Quality and Outcomes Framework used in the payment of practices is likely to be relatively easily accepted by GPs in England. However, if improving quality is to become routine work for practices, it will be important for the NHS in the four UK countries to work with practices to mitigate some of the barriers that they face, in particular the lack of protected time.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansQuality ImprovementState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomgeneral practicemanagementquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID34049868
PMCPMC8166611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.