ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2024
Strengthening crisis resilience in German primary care by using quality indicators: findings of a process evaluation in the RESILARE project.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, health systems worldwide have been confronted with several crises such as natural disasters or the COVID-19 pandemic, that affected lives and health of many people. In light of waves of infections and heat, climate change is considered to be the biggest health threat of the 21st century. Strengthening individual and organizational crisis resilience in healthcare settings thus becomes a crucial factor in maintaining care quality and protecting vulnerable patients during such crises. The RESILARE project therefore aimed to develop and evaluate quality indicators that support primary care practices in preparing for and adapting to crisis-related challenges.
methodsIn a three-phased process, indicator development was based on systematic literature research and qualitative data, a two-stage expert panel process, and pilot testing in a maximum of n = 35 ambulatory practices during an outreach visit. Practice-individual indicator-related status and benchmarking information were provided via feedback reports to complete the audit and feedback program. A mixed-methods process evaluation used semistructured interviews with participating General practitioners and nonphysician health professionals to explore support and challenges for the implementation of the derived set of quality indicators. Two online surveys were conducted to evaluate all indicators and the two-part feedback report. Qualitative data were analyzed inductively using a thematic analysis approach. Survey data were analyzed descriptively.
resultsA total of n = 32 indicators covered four domains: (1) individual resilience, (2) crisis prevention, (3) organizational resilience, and (4) climate resilience. N = 34 practices participated in the piloting and the process evaluation. Participants generally attributed a high relevance to the domains, and considered the indicator set suitable for implementation into existing quality management systems. Planning and implementation of measures that strengthen crisis resilience in practices were triggered or intensified by piloting the indicators and by the two-part feedback report. The identified challenges involved the volume of indicators and practice-individual implementation of renewable energy sources on rented premises. Participants expressed their desire for peer exchange regarding proven concepts for crisis resilience.
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.