Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41093614›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open quality2025

A systematic review of international performance indicators and metrics relevant to UK general practice.

Duncan Chambers, Rebecca Mawson, Justina Mettle-Nunoo, Anthea Sutton, Andrew Booth

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Duncan ChambersSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK d.chambers@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0154-0469
Rebecca MawsonSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.
Justina Mettle-NunooSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.
Anthea SuttonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.
Andrew BoothSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4808-3880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA wide variety of performance indicators/metrics are used to measure the performance of healthcare systems and to promote quality improvement (QI). We sought to identify indicators relevant to QI and organisational development (OD) within primary care/general practices and to evaluate the evidence for their use in QI and OD interventions in UK general practice and primary care.

methodsWe used a framework based on UK National Health Service primary care documents to structure the review. Separate literature searches were performed in four databases to identify relevant reviews and primary studies. Studies were included if (1) the main focus was a metric or indicator that fell within the review framework or (2) they reported an OD or QI initiative or intervention in UK primary care that used one or more of the previously identified metrics or indicators. We mapped studies in group 1 against our framework domains. We performed a narrative synthesis of studies in group 2, again organised by the overall framework.

resultsWe included 28 studies, 24 (11 reviews and 13 international primary studies) for metrics or indicators and 4 for initiatives or interventions. The number of individual indicators or groups of indicators in group 1 studies ranged from 1 to 773. Three of the four UK QI/OD studies focused on initial access to general practice services; the other dealt with a programme to encourage self-care for long-term conditions. Mapping of the group 1 studies identified potentially relevant indicators across all domains but the process was methodologically challenging.

conclusionsAlthough numerous potential indicators exist, they tend to be poorly defined and lack examples of their use in practice. Further work is needed to identify and evaluate candidate indicators.

Indexed as

General PracticeQuality Indicators, Health CareHumansPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementUnited KingdomGENERAL PRACTICEQuality improvementSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID41093614
PMCPMC12530429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.