Qualitative Evaluation of the Safety and Improvement in Primary Care (SIPC) Pilot Collaborative in Scotland: Perceptions and Experiences of Participating Care Teams

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2016 Jan 31

PMID 26826149

Citations 4

Authors

Paul Bowie

Lyn Halley

Avril Blamey

Jill Gillies

Neil Houston

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To explore general practitioner (GP) team perceptions and experiences of participating in a large-scale safety and improvement pilot programme to develop and test a range of interventions that were largely new to this setting.

Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed thematically.

Subjects And Setting: Purposive sample of multiprofessional study participants from 11 GP teams based in 3 Scottish National Health Service (NHS) Boards.

Results: 27 participants were interviewed. 3 themes were generated: (1) programme experiences and benefits, for example, a majority of participants referred to gaining new theoretical and experiential safety knowledge (such as how unreliable evidence-based care can be) and skills (such as how to search electronic records for undetected risks) related to the programme interventions; (2) improvements to patient care systems, for example, improvements in care systems reliability using care bundles were reported by many, but this was an evolving process strongly dependent on closer working arrangements between clinical and administrative staff; (3) the utility of the programme improvement interventions, for example, mixed views and experiences of participating in the safety climate survey and meeting to reflect on the feedback report provided were apparent. Initial theories on the utilisation and potential impact of some interventions were refined based on evidence.

Conclusions: The pilot was positively received with many practices reporting improvements in safety systems, team working and communications with colleagues and patients. Barriers and facilitators were identified related to how interventions were used as the programme evolved, while other challenges around spreading implementation beyond this pilot were highlighted.

Citing Articles

The role of quality improvement collaboratives in general practice: a qualitative systematic review.

Knight A, Tam C, Dennis S, Fraser J, Pond D BMJ Open Qual. 2022; 11(2).

PMID: 35589275 PMC: 9121486. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001800.

An evaluation of the implementation of quality improvement (QI) in primary care dentistry: a multi-method approach.

Cassie H, Mistry V, Beaton L, Black I, Clarkson J, Young L BMJ Open Qual. 2021; 10(2).

PMID: 33849904 PMC: 8051365. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000839.

Facilitators and barriers to safer care in Scottish general practice: a qualitative study of the implementation of the trigger review method using normalisation process theory.

de Wet C, Bowie P, ODonnell C BMJ Open. 2019; 9(9):e029914.

PMID: 31537569 PMC: 6756363. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029914.

Diagnostic errors in paediatric cardiac intensive care.

Bhat P, Costello J, Aiyagari R, Sharek P, Algaze C, Mazwi M Cardiol Young. 2018; 28(5):675-682.

PMID: 29409553 PMC: 7271069. DOI: 10.1017/S1047951117002906.

References

Siriwardena A, Shaw D, Essam N, Togher F, Davy Z, Spaight A . The effect of a national quality improvement collaborative on prehospital care for acute myocardial infarction and stroke in England. Implement Sci. 2014; 9:17. PMC: 3904412. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-17. View

Ovretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, Cretin S, Gustafson D, McInnes K . Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002; 11(4):345-51. PMC: 1757995. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.345. View

Barcelo A, Cafiero E, de Boer M, Mesa A, Lopez M, Jimenez R . Using collaborative learning to improve diabetes care and outcomes: the VIDA project. Prim Care Diabetes. 2010; 4(3):145-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2010.04.005. View

Asch S, Baker D, Keesey J, Broder M, Schonlau M, Rosen M . Does the collaborative model improve care for chronic heart failure?. Med Care. 2005; 43(7):667-75. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000167182.72251.a1. View

McNab D, McKay J, Bowie P . A before and after study of warfarin monitoring in a single region as part of the Scottish patient safety programme in primary care. Scott Med J. 2015; 60(4):196-201. DOI: 10.1177/0036933015597178. View

Britten N . Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995; 311(6999):251-3. PMC: 2550292. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251. View

Bundy D, Randolph G, Murray M, Anderson J, Margolis P . Open access in primary care: results of a North Carolina pilot project. Pediatrics. 2005; 116(1):82-7. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-2573. View

Schouten L, Hulscher M, van Everdingen J, Huijsman R, Grol R . Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008; 336(7659):1491-4. PMC: 2440907. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39570.749884.BE. View

Hulscher M, Schouten L, Grol R, Buchan H . Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show?. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012; 22(1):19-31. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000651. View

10.

Chin M, Cook S, Drum M, Jin L, Guillen M, Humikowski C . Improving diabetes care in midwest community health centers with the health disparities collaborative. Diabetes Care. 2003; 27(1):2-8. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.1.2. View

11.

Elder N, Dovey S . Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: a synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract. 2002; 51(11):927-32. View

12.

McKay J, de Wet C, Kelly M, Bowie P . Applying the Trigger Review Method after a brief educational intervention: potential for teaching and improving safety in GP specialty training?. BMC Med Educ. 2013; 13:117. PMC: 3846442. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-117. View

13.

Gawande A . The checklist: if something so simple can transform intensive care, what else can it do?. New Yorker. 2007; :86-101. View

14.

Howard R, Avery A, Howard P, Partridge M . Investigation into the reasons for preventable drug related admissions to a medical admissions unit: observational study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003; 12(4):280-5. PMC: 1743731. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.12.4.280. View

15.

Baier R, Gifford D, Lyder C, Schall M, Funston-Dillon D, Lewis J . Quality improvement for pressure ulcer care in the nursing home setting: the Northeast Pressure Ulcer Project. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003; 4(6):291-301. DOI: 10.1097/01.JAM.0000094064.06058.74. View

16.

Walshe K . Understanding what works--and why--in quality improvement: the need for theory-driven evaluation. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(2):57-9. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm004. View

17.

Gannon M, Qaseem A, Snow V, Snooks Q . Using online learning collaboratives to facilitate practice improvement for COPD: an ACPNet pilot study. Am J Med Qual. 2011; 26(3):212-9. DOI: 10.1177/1062860610391081. View

18.

Knight A, Ford D, Audehm R, Colagiuri S, Best J . The Australian Primary Care Collaboratives Program: improving diabetes care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012; 21(11):956-63. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000460. View

19.

de Wet C, Spence W, Mash R, Johnson P, Bowie P . The development and psychometric evaluation of a safety climate measure for primary care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19(6):578-84. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.031062. View

20.

Marshall M, Pronovost P, Dixon-Woods M . Promotion of improvement as a science. Lancet. 2013; 381(9864):419-21. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61850-9. View