Practice Visits As a Tool in Quality Improvement: Acceptance and Feasibility
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of (a) two programmes of assessment of practice management in a practice visit: mutual practice visits and feedback by peers versus visits and feedback by non-physician observers and (2) the practice visit method used in these programmes (the visit instrument to assess practice management and organisation (VIP)--a validated Dutch tool).
Design: Prospective, randomised intervention study with the two programmes, follow up after one year. General practitioners (GPs) were visited after each programme and after the revisits by non-physician observers a year later.
Setting: General practices in the Netherlands in 1993 and 1994.
Subjects: A total of 90 GPs in 68 practices. At follow up after 1 year there were 81 GPs in 62 practices.
Main Measures: Scores (mainly five point scales) for questions on appreciation and acceptance; after the follow up visit a year later, scores for questions on feasibility and practicality of the improved procedure and feedback report.
Results: Data of 44 mutual visits by peers were compared with data of 46 visits by non-physician observers. A visit by a non-physician observer was appreciated significantly more. After the practice visit at one year follow up, the participants reported to have appreciated the visit and the feedback report and to prefer feedback of a non-physician observer to that of a peer. Participants' reports on the procedure and the presentation of the feedback provided clues for the improvement of visit procedures.
Conclusions: A practice visit and feedback by a non-physician observer is more appreciated than a visit and feedback by a colleague. A practice visit with the VIP by a non-physician observer is a simple, easy, and well accepted method for assessing practice management.
Pawa J, Robson J, Hull S Br J Gen Pract. 2017; 67(664):e764-e774.
PMID: 28893768 PMC: 5647920. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X692597.
Maas M, Nijhuis-van Der Sanden M, Driehuis F, Heerkens Y, van der Vleuten C, van der Wees P BMJ Open. 2017; 7(2):e013726.
PMID: 28188156 PMC: 5306504. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013726.
Goetz K, Hess S, Jossen M, Huber F, Rosemann T, Brodowski M BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4):e007443.
PMID: 25900466 PMC: 4410115. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007443.
Jones D, Forehand R, Cuellar J, Kincaid C, Parent J, Fenton N Clin Psychol Rev. 2013; 33(2):241-52.
PMID: 23313761 PMC: 3566281. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.11.003.
Effectiveness of a quality-improvement program in improving management of primary care practices.
Szecsenyi J, Campbell S, Broge B, Laux G, Willms S, Wensing M CMAJ. 2011; 183(18):E1326-33.
PMID: 22043000 PMC: 3255110. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110412.